bushy

Brady has an 88.1 passer rating behind the likes of Kaepernick, Matt Ryan, Cutler, and Roethlisberger. Sorry, Brady should be no where near the MVP trophy. He shouldn't even be in the Pro Bowl either as Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger are all having better years.

Weather has nothing, or I should say little, to do with it. Almost all of Manning's 'cold' games to date are on the road. Being on the road, IMO, is a much bigger factor than being in the cold. Check out any QB's home/road splits.

He's also got that TD record hanging out there well within his grasp. He'll deny it but don't think for one minute that he wants Brady holding that record.

I probably should include Brees. He's just a step below the other 2.

Peyton and Brady are the only sure fire guys if today was everyone's last day.

Montana Marino Young Manning Elway Kelly Brady Aikman Bradshaw Favre Warner Fouts Moon Oldtimers like Baugh and Unitas would be better than any of these guys.

The reason the number hasn't moved to 2.5 is easy. The line opened at Pats -3.5. A lot of money came in on the Giants at that number. The books are terrified that if they move the line 2.5 the game will end up at 3 and they'll lose a ton to both sides.

They already had a makeup year in 2001. That team was probably not even one of the top 5 in the league.

They won't do it, but Atlanta has some value also. Not sure how Detroit has better odds of winning the super bowl than Atlanta. I can understand why Houston has better odds than Atlanta because they play in the weaker conference.

The Lions and Bears with Cutler are also much more formidable than the Dolphins and Jets. The Packers played and beat the Saints, Falcons, Giants, and Lions twice. They also beat the Bears with Cutler once. That right there is tougher than the Pats schedule.

New England has only played 2 games the whole year against teams with winning records: Pittsburgh and NY Giants, both losses. Unfortunately for them, all the playoffs teams minus Denver are winning teams.

NFC is loaded. Green Bay is the best team, but New Orleans, San Francisco, and the Giants are all better than the AFC's 1 seed. On the AFC side, it's wide open. I don't see a clear favorite, although if Pittsburgh was healthy I'd take them.

I hate leaguewide votes on trades and acquisitions, but I think this will require a league vote. Otherwise, the two shady guys will not accept the commissioner's judgement.

Saints are at home next week.

Nothing will beat Brady in 2007. They ran it up all the time. He was the king of 4th quarter and 1 yard TD passes. Rodgers/McCarthy have a little more class than the NE duo.

Heard a crazy stat on ESPN this week: QBs who throw at Revis' man have a 2.6 QB rating for those throws this year.

Walked by my local one. Awful lot of hammers and sickles along with books by Lenin and Marx.

3. They've beaten San Diego, NY Jets, and now Dallas since losing to the Jets at home in January.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I know it as Hardee's, but always see Carl's Jr in Cali.

Carl's Jr is what they call Hardee's out west.

Webb is definitely gone. He's already said he's not running. Same for Herb Kohl. Same for Conrad. Obama may win Ohio, but I don't see any way he wins NC, Florida, VA, or Indiana. He barely won those states last time and that was when he was flying high.

I wouldn't be in favor of a corporate AMT, but the rules should be the same for GE as they are for the mom and pop pizza shop on the corner. Therefore, get rid of all deductions and lower to rate to 23%. Then every business, large or small, lobbyists or no lobbyists, pay 23% on all profits.

I never claimed otherwise. You, sir, are the one having a problem with actual facts. I don't really care who's in office. I am presenting facts. You can go play your political games elsewhere. I made it pretty clear that the recession had a great effect on the deficit. Having said that, the budget in FY 08 was $2.983T. The budget in FY 09 was $3.518T. That's a 17.9% increase in one year. A lot of that increase is from the so called 'stimulus'. The bailouts by both presidents also contributed a little. So, while a majority of the deficit was caused by a decrease in revenue, I don't think it can be argued that a huge spending increase also contributed to the deficit.

Here's the link to the data. Those are fiscal years (i.e. 1 Oct - 30 Sep). 2009 normally would belong to Bush. The president in 2008 normally would sign the budget for FY 09. However, the democrats in congress knew Obama was coming in, and thus never passed a budget until Obama became president. They did continuing resolutions (which Bush signed) until shortly after 20 Jan 09. And then they filled up their wish lists and goodie bags and sent it to the White House for Obama's signature.

Can you not read? Do you understand what a percentage is? Percentage wise, the deficit numbers were fairly good and improving under Bush until 2008 when the recession hit. And I quote, "In reality I think we would still see a pretty big increase in the debt as compared to the GDP, just like we did after Bush's tax cuts". Again, facts can be troublesome things, but they most definitely refute your statement. The deficit, in terms of percentage of GDP, most definitely did not see "a pretty big increase" after the Bush tax cuts passed.