From the AP: "Duke case could derail Nifong's 3-decade career as prosecutor".
I bet all four road dogs last weekend, and I am betting this.
AND SINCE YOU ASK: Brady plus Belichick plus points equals "Must Bet" next weekend. And last weekend, it was "Saints Ain't". This weekend, they are. Going to cover, natch.
Ahhhh... You think?
Posted by: Tims | January 16, 2007 at 06:27 AM
Couldn't happen to a slimier DA. As soon as it came out that he convinced the lab to withhold evidence, he should have been arrested. These folks should not be above the law. And these kind of abuses won't stop until prosecutors and LEA are held responsible - jail terms would be a good threat. With that said, many of the cases of outrageous prosecutorial misconduct are swept under the table. Many prosecutors found guilty are given a slap on the wrist, and a promotion to boot.
Posted by: Specter | January 16, 2007 at 07:13 AM
Too bad this won't happen to Patrick Fitzgerald too.
Posted by: Florence Schmieg | January 16, 2007 at 09:39 AM
What, no asinine comment from Sylvia yet?
Posted by: Mark F. | January 16, 2007 at 09:43 AM
oh please...Brady & Belichick were outplayed by Chargers..they got lucky
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 09:46 AM
I would describe it as the Chargers beating themselves.
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 09:52 AM
Brady played a lousy game against the Chargers, but the Bolts had a death wish in that game. Fumbled punt, fumbled interception return, the insane head-butt, and Marty's utterly inexplicable challenge that cost them a time out that might have allowed them to get to overtime. Go Reggie; go Saints.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 16, 2007 at 09:54 AM
Brady had a terrible game. It was a sloppy game all around, so inevitably it came down to whoever made the fewest/last mistakes.
Posted by: megrez80 | January 16, 2007 at 09:57 AM
What is you confidence level for the Bears/Saints? 70/30?
Go Bears!
Posted by: danking70 | January 16, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Hmmmm.
Anybody mind telling me how Nick Saban (Miami Dolphins -> Alabama) is worth that much money?
Unless I'm completely off base this guy has basically one bowl game win under his belt. The other seasons were good, not great or "rebuilding". And his performance in Miami is nothing to boast of.
So on what planet in this galaxy is Saban worth the money he's been offered? Or am I totally off-base on this? Any explanations very welcome.
Posted by: ed | January 16, 2007 at 11:33 AM
The Chargers made too many mental errors... they deserved to loose! The Patriots showed what it takes to win in the post season - discipline!
Of course I'm a NE season ticket holder!
Go Patriots.
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Dear Bob
I hope you get mauled...:)
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Chargers had it in the bag and then lost it in the last few minutes. They should have stopped that touchdown drive but seemed slow in combatting it. Both coaches did coach in Cleveland at one time and both have experienced this kind of letdown before. Brady did not have his best game. I agree with windansea, anybody's game on Sunday. The Colts know how to step up. Patriots showed thie vulnerability.
NiFong-dead man walking and he now knows it.
Posted by: maryrose | January 16, 2007 at 12:44 PM
I'll take the Colts...you can have the points...ahhh nothing beats the feeling of a good revenge bet
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 12:50 PM
The Colts have already lost... they have the biggest prima donna in the NFL - Manning. His last two games he has done squat!, and yet if you here him talk he was the hero. Thanks to the Ex Patriot Vinatieri, they're in the AFC playoff.
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM
thanks to a fumble so are the Pats
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM
live blogging Libby juror selection at firedoglake
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 01:03 PM
Yeah but the Pats weren't ordained to win like the Colts... The Colts are always suppose to win. Lets see if Manning shows up to play on Sunday. If the Pats loose, so be it... they've done better than one would have hoped. If the Colts loose, then Manning will just blame his teammates again.
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Call your shot. Eight ball in the corner pocket.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | January 16, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Bob: It's lose not loose though their playing {the Pats} has been loose. I have to go with Manning. He is more hungry for the win.
Posted by: maryrose | January 16, 2007 at 01:33 PM
Yeah maryrose... it's fat fingers and a fat head that gets me every time. To bad they don't make a spell checker that's geared for people like me!
But maybe I meant to say that the Pats will be in better position to be "loose" than the over rated Dolts!
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 01:47 PM
I'm going with the Pats. Cuter quarterback. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 01:59 PM
ed,
Regarding Saban: I suspect it is a bit early to decide whether he is worth the money or not, since he has yet to coach a game at Alabama. He seems to have been a reasonably successful college coach, since the one bowl game you give him credit for was for a National Championship, and many of the players he recruited to LSU won the National Championship this year. JaMarcus Russell, a Mobile native and likely #1 draft choice,was recruited out from under Alabama and Auburn by Saban. If he can keep bringing that kind of talent to his new job and stabilize the coaching situation there, he has the potential to be successful and bring in millions to the athletic department, which is the bottom line. You can imagine that, with all this hype, they will have little problem selling out their season tickets this year and, with their home field recently expanded to 92,000 seats, keeping the seats full will go a long way to paying for Saban. The difference in payouts from a BCS bowl game and the podunk bowls that Alabama has been playing in is huge, assuming he can get them there. We shall see if this was a bad move or not.
Posted by: Tom from LA | January 16, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Sue:
Peyton Manning is no slouch either. I actually saw him play against the Browns. He is and continues to be - a hunk.
Posted by: maryrose | January 16, 2007 at 02:08 PM
I'm sorry. I don't find Peyton Manning attractive. That doesn't mean others do not, though, so I should have made it clear that I think Brady is the cuter quarterback.
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 02:17 PM
this is how you ladies pick presidents too right?
:)
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Yeah and they call us guys super-bowl-ficial!
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 02:31 PM
::grin::
Nope. But it works in football! Trust me!
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Hmmm.
We'll see. But IMHO so far Saban is the highest paid coach to not win championships.
Posted by: ed | January 16, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Nope. But it works in football! Trust me!
so the cutest QB wins? Ok give me your picks for Sunday's games and I will bet the farm, does this methos work on over/under bets?
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 02:51 PM
OK...Brees v Grossman (no, not Marc!) in the NFC. Who's cuter?
Posted by: hit and run | January 16, 2007 at 02:56 PM
heh, windandsea, I was about to ask the same thing. My line was going to be - "Is the cuter QB $100 cuter or $1000 cuter?"
Posted by: hit and run | January 16, 2007 at 02:58 PM
If you ask the 3 girls in my house, Tom Brady is worth "my weight" in gold!
Posted by: Bob | January 16, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Brees. But not because he's cuter. Just a better quarterback. That only works when their abilities are similar. Grossman is too wishy-washy. No consistency. Plus, I don't think the Bears defense can stop Bush and McAllister.
Sunday's games...Pats and Saints. Saints win Superbowl. That's my prediction and I'm sticking with it. Subject to being wrong on Sunday then I'll revise. ::grin:: Based on cuter.
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 03:05 PM
If you really want to try my theory out though, I'd say Brees is $1,000 cuter than Grossman.
Posted by: Sue | January 16, 2007 at 03:08 PM
Well, in a society that really is superficial, and a medium that lends itself so often to just what you can see, and nothing in depth on the players...
Those pieces about how Brees has embraced going to New Orleans and really become a part of that community and trying to help it recover ----------> That's Hot.
In a non-gay way, of course.
NTTAWWT
Posted by: hit and run | January 16, 2007 at 03:14 PM
Da Bears D is a shadow of its former self without Brown and Harris. I'm skeert of the Saints. This from a life-long (Sid Luckman ring a bell?) Bear fan.
Posted by: Larry | January 16, 2007 at 03:20 PM
I suspect syl isn't here cuz she has to google what football is. She couldn't figure out who all the new "players" were in the "Duke" case.
I'll tellya what Bob - if NE didn't have a decent field goal kicker for the last 6 years, they would not have won a single playoff game. Nothing to do with Brady. Simple.
Posted by: Specter | January 16, 2007 at 03:27 PM
it's going to be a Saints/Colts superbowl, they have the best teams left in playoffs
Peyton may be a prima donna Bob, but he will shred the Pats
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 03:30 PM
And I don't normally watch college football - but the game between Oklahoma and Boise State was one of the greatest I have ever seen - it was a barn burner! Would love to see a game between Florida and Boise State.
Saints will win the Super Bowl. Too many good players from Texas on their team for them to lose.
Posted by: TexasIsHeaven | January 16, 2007 at 03:39 PM
But IMHO so far Saban is the highest paid coach to not win championships.
What do you call this? They also won the 2002 Sugar Bowl, so the "one bowl game" argument is out too.
Posted by: SaveFarris | January 16, 2007 at 03:54 PM
Posted by: Tom from LA | January 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM I bet Tide game revenue is already enough to finance the whole school. The difference will then be the big bowls vs the small ones.
Posted by: Larry | January 16, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Lessee: Manning, who's sucked for two consecutive weeks, whose defense has been playing with the house money for those same two weeks, and who has an Alex Rodriguez-esque capacity to choke in the postseason? Or Brady, who owns three Super Bowl rings, and who despite playing poorly on Sunday still managed to give his team a chance to win against the cream of the AFC?
Keep hope alive, wind!
Posted by: BC | January 16, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Nifong tried to be a shooting star. He ended up a black hole.
Posted by: TruthProbe | January 16, 2007 at 08:41 PM
I see that, once again, you are avoiding discussion of Iraq today? Instead you choose to rally around the handmaidens of the Iraq atrocity? Well, I guess you're doing what's expected of you. Don't forget the goose-step. It adds a nice touch.
Posted by: BTW | January 16, 2007 at 09:14 PM
Manning is best passer in NFL...he will school Patriot secondary all day...
Say bye bye Brady
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 09:17 PM
I see that, once again, you are avoiding discussion of Iraq today?
Heil Hitler!
Posted by: windansea | January 16, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Just like he "schooled" the Chiefs and Ravens secondaries, I trust. Or like he's "schooled" the supposedly-soft Patriots secondary every other time he's faced them in the postseason.
I'm looking forward to the 2006-2007 edition of "Brady consoles Manning at midfield". Can't wait.
Posted by: BC | January 16, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Yeah almost as simple as Vinatieri kicking 5 field goals for all of Dolts points on Sunday. So if FG are not to be part of a win, I guess Precious Peyton is even more dependant on his kicker than Brady... but you won't hear that from from him or dolt fans. At least Brady had 2 TDs against the best defense in the NFL!
Posted by: Bob | January 17, 2007 at 06:09 AM
Saints- not quite ready for primetime-though they will put up a good effort.
Da Bears having been an SNL skit have a pretty good chance to advance.
It is because of those 3 Superbowl rings that the Pats have become complacent. Peyton Manning is looking at his legacy. Colts in OT.
Posted by: maryrose | January 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
John Podhoretz
I mean, have you ever been in the bathroom of an unrenovated bungalow? You can barely fit a parent and a small child together in one - let alone five adults, two of them well over 6 feet in height.
It seems that penetration would have occured just by accident in the confined space described above with five adults present. Really, things would have to fit somewhere...
Posted by: sad | January 17, 2007 at 06:33 PM
The previous post refers to an article written by John Podhoretz called "Senseless" in the New York Post. He was talking about the bathroom where the alleged rape occured, noting that common sense should have prevailed on the part of the investigator upon seeing the tiny bathroom where everthing supposedly transpired.
Posted by: sad | January 17, 2007 at 06:38 PM
I mean, have you ever been in the bathroom of an unrenovated bungalow? You can barely fit a parent and a small child together in one - let alone five adults, two of them well over 6 feet in height.
IMGawd...this man is so astute. Think of the mornings when 2 people have to be at work at 8am. WAR of the Roses.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | January 17, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Top,
Here's a few facts on the duplex. Built in 1945 with 3BR in 814 sq ft. It would be surprising if the bath is bigger than 5X5.
Those rich white boys sure are livin' large.
How could we ever live without unfounded kneejerk profiling by the truly ignorant?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 17, 2007 at 08:14 PM
Podhoretz column.
I had the wrong address - here's the correct one.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 17, 2007 at 09:28 PM
Common sense is totally lacking in this case. It was all about grifting and re-election.
Posted by: maryrose | January 17, 2007 at 09:57 PM
ok..that was a great game (Colts/Pats)and it was priceless to see the hopeless confused expression on Belichicks face in the closing minute.
TO BC: na na na na nyeh
Posted by: windansea | January 22, 2007 at 10:28 AM