Three Patriots questions asked and answered on a Thursday as we all wait for Sunday and the chance to finally hear Jim Nantz and Phil Simms realize a dream and announce a game from Gillette Stadium ...

1. Is Brandon Spikes a punk?

This is all about perspective, right? If you are Ryan Fitzpatrick or Eric Wood (who called Spikes a "headhunter") or Fred Jackson or Scott Chandler or a Buffalo Bills fan (and God bless them -- it's been 6,165 days since they've won a playoff game) you probably think Spikes is a punk. Let's forget for a moment the hits on Chandler (which I thought was absolutely over the line and solid evidence to back up Wood's claim) and Fitzpatrick (didn't have a problem with it -- sure, it's a penalty in today's NFL, but that was not a dirty play by the loosest definition) and focus on the wallop applied to Fred Jackson in the fourth quarter on Sunday. 

Well, not so much even on the hit itself, actually. Look, Spikes came in and blasted Jackson's head with his shoulder, causing a fumble and knocking Jackson out of the game with a concussion (Jackson will miss Thursday's game at Miami). I've watched the play 20 times and still have no clue if Spikes was going after Jackson's head. Too fast and too many moving parts to come to any definitive conclusion. 

But it was the reaction of Spikes, the image of him flexing his arm and jawing with the Buffalo bench as Jackson was being helped off the field after a serious hit to the head that I imagine was the trigger for a lot of this stuff from Buffalo players, coaches and fans. And I get it, I really do. Let's be fair: If that's James Harrison or Ndamukong Suh doing the same thing after knocking Wes Welker out of the game, it's the story of the week around here. 

There is a line -- though they really do keep moving it -- and Spikes jumps over it more than any Patriots player since Rodney Harrison. Now, do I think the perception of Spikes might be different if he were an undersized white linebacker from Army with a crew cut? Maybe. But the reality is this: The Patriots coaches -- that means Bill Belichick -- clearly don't have a problem with what Spikes is doing, because he keeps doing it and stays on the field. And that's exactly where he should be. When Spikes is right, I think he's the best linebacker on the team. Spikes will continue to go over that line because that's who he is and that's what the Patriots want, and that's not going to change. These things will continue to happen, and players and fans from other cities will have Spikes on Public Enemy lists and we'll hear the word punk again and that'll be justifiable. And it'll be OK with Spikes and Belichick and the fans aroud here as long as the production is there.

2. Is Ben Roethlisberger's injury a good thing for the patriots?

Here's what the AFC playoff picture looks like:

1. Houston: 8-1

2. Baltimore: 7-2

3. New England: 6-3

4. Denver: 6-3 (lost to New England)

5. Indianapolis: 6-3

6. Pittsburgh: 6-3

San Diego, Miami and Cincinnati all are 4-5, two games out of the wild card. It would appear that 9-7 gets you in this season, which means even if Roethlisberger is out for the season the Steelers probably will find a way to sneak in (they still have the Browns twice and the Chargers and Bengals at home). The six teams that are in the playoffs right now are going to be the six playoff teams -- there's a reason the Chargers, Dolphins and Bengals are 4-5. 

But from a Patriots perspective, this injury (or injuries) makes it tougher to get what really matters -- one of the top two seeds and the bye week that comes with it. If you pencil in the Texans for the 1 or 2 seed, which seems fair if not a lock at 8-1, you've got to get past the Ravens for the second bye. Well, the Ravens have the Steelers two times over the next three weeks. With a healthy Roethlisberger, that's likely a split or even possibly a pair of losses. But now you have to at least favor Baltimore in both games. If the Ravens win both, that gets them to nine wins. Here's the rest of their schedule:

at Chargers

at Redskins

Broncos

Giants

at Bengals

I don't see an absolute lock win in there, do you? But you have to figure, at the very least, the Ravens will figure out how to get to 11-5. And, again assuming the Texans have the other spot, the Patriots will have to win 12 games (remember, they lost to the Ravens) to get a week off and at least one home game. Yup, if Roethlisberger is gone for the season that eliminates one legitimate contender (and potentially sets up a first-round matchup with the Steelers at Foxboro), but it certainly increases the odds that the Patriots might have to win a pair of road games to get to the Super Bowl.

3. Would you trade Tom Brady for Andrew Luck?

You either enjoy these dopey, who-really-cares-because-it'll-never-happen kind of sports debates or you don't. I've always had a soft spot for them, all the way back to Magic vs. Bird, Clemens vs. Gooden, Hogan vs. Flair and Roper vs. Furley. 

We are smack in the middle of the honeymoon phase with Luck. Unless you are just looking to be a contrarian, there is no reason to think he won't be a terrific quarterback in the NFL for the next decade. So there it is: Would you rather have three, four years of Brady or 10, 12 years of Luck?

I'll go with Brady. Do I think Luck is going to be great? Yes, but there are unknowns. Teams haven't had a second, third, fourth look at him. We don't know if he'll turn out to be injury-prone, or if a weakness exists in his game that hasn't been discovered. Also there's this: Luck is a running quarterback, he gets out of the pocket and looks to make plays. That'll change as he ages, I suppose, but it's worth watching from a health perspective over the next couple of years.

Tom Brady is 35 years old, and of course time is starting to run out. But this still is one of the three best quarterbacks in the NFL, and there's not a lot to suggest that'll change much over the next couple of years. I'll take the three years of knowing the Patriots can win the Super Bowl with Brady than the possibility of a decade of excellence with Luck.