Before I do my picks later this week I'd like to revisit my discussion with Lucas that he last responded to here. I actually agree with a majority of what he said (including, shockingly, his Red Sox comment, although I'd say that A-Rod is worse for the game than Manny even though I can see how a non-Sox-fan would quickly tire of Manny's quirks), so I have just a few responses before I get to another topic.

Lucas said:
There are plenty of other high-class organizations out there, so it's a poor argument by TMQ. However, Chris, I don't believe you can honestly tell me that bringing up an argument to the rules committee in the offseason about them enforcing an already-existing rule is at the same level of "poor sportsmanship" as willfully breaking a rule to gain a competitive advantage (no matter how small that advantage might actually have been).

First of all, it was not an already-existing rule. The rules for wide receiver contact were changed after those meetings to the current system where no contact with wide receivers is allowed beyond 5 yards. Before that, contact was allowed so long as the ball was not in the air.

Secondly, let's play make-believe for a moment. Remember when we played basketball in the mornings with the CS department and then diagrammed on the board in the DOC lab where our shooting range was, with you making many layups and me making many outside shots but no layups and you often winning? Imagine that, frustrated after losing once again, I refused to play again until we changed the rules to not allow any shots from the paint. Wouldn't I come across as a whiny sore loser? Which would be more of an example of "sportsmanship", the aforementioned behavior, or me practicing layups and/or wearing Bart Simpson's platform shoes that he used to audition for the role of Fallout Boy (the character, not the band)?

Now, I think I'm ready to tackle the running up the score question. There were three games where the Patriots were accused of running up the score, their win over Dallas, their win over Miami, and their win over Washington.

The Cowboys are an elite (at least for the NFC) team that was actually beating the Patriots as late as the latter part of the 3rd quarter. In that situation, I don't think you take out starters, even if you're ahead in the 4th quarter. The Cowboys had already rallied from a deficit once in that game, there's no need to let that happen again.

In the Miami game, the Patriots were up 42-7 at the half and went on to win 49-28. First of all, I don't think there's such thing as running up the score in the first half. I have no problem with them scoring 42 points in the first half. The Pats had only 1 possession in the 3rd quarter (play by play) and were fairly pass wacky, but 3 of the passes were short passes that the Patriots use instead of runs, especially with Sammy Morris out and Laurence Maroney injured. But the main contention the media had with this game was removing backup Matt Cassel (who had been put in the game to start the 4th quarter, not exactly a running-up-the-score move) and putting Brady back in. I can agree with benching Cassel after the interception, but I think putting Brady back in was kind of a schoolyard move. Their 3rd QB is actually pretty decent and could use the work, so I would've liked to see them put him in instead of Brady. I think the running-up-the-score accusation in this game were not completely outrageous, but I'd argue that if this was another team nothing would have been said.

That brings us to the 52-7 victory over Washington. I watched this game on TV, and I actually agree with the accusations here. The Redskins were completely overmatched for the entire game. Up 45-0, there is no need to have Brady in to start a drive near the end of the 3rd quarter, and especially no need for him to throw deep balls to Randy Moss or scramble for first downs. Not only was this uncomfortable to watch due to the lopsidedness, but even if nobody took Michael Wilbon's advice to go after Brady's knees, there's a chance he gets hurt anyway.

I understand the reasoning behind the scoring was to practice "playing all 60 minutes" after blowing a large 2nd half lead against the Colts last year, but there is also a lot of value in giving backup players reps in a game. It's possible to retain the intensity of trying to finish the game with the backups in, and if the backups aren't able to retain that intensity then that tells you that maybe you should have someone else on your team.

With the weather getting colder and the quality of opponents mostly solid from here on out (with the exception of the Dolphins), I don't think we'll see too many more 52-7 games. What's your take on it, Lucas? At least if you disagree and think they've been running up the score all season you won't be hypocritical like, say, Steve Young.