NFL 2004 Season Week 4 Picks
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!These are not our most current picks!
Our freshest batch of picks are the NFL 2007 Season Super Bowl Picks.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Patriots 31 @ Bills 17 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm CBS
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Redskins 13 @ Browns 17 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm FOX
|
Browns
 |
Redskins
 |
Redskins
|
Browns
|
||||
| Eagles 19 @ Bears 9 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm FOX
|
Eagles
 |
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Giants 14 @ Packers 7 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm FOX
|
Packers
 |
Giants
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Raiders 17 @ Texans 30 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm CBS
|
Raiders
 |
Texans
 |
Raiders
|
Texans
|
||||
| Colts 24 @ Jaguars 17 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm CBS
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| Bengals 17 @ Steelers 28 Sun, 10/3/04 12:00pm CBS
|
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Steelers
 |
Bengals
|
||||
| Falcons 27 @ Panthers 10 Sun, 10/3/04 3:05pm FOX
|
Panthers
 |
Panthers
|
Falcons
 |
Panthers
|
||||
| Saints 10 @ Cardinals 34 Sun, 10/3/04 3:05pm FOX
|
Cardinals
 |
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
||||
| Broncos 16 @ Buccaneers 13 Sun, 10/3/04 3:15pm CBS
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| Titans 17 @ Chargers 38 Sun, 10/3/04 3:15pm CBS
|
Titans
 |
Titans
|
Titans
|
Chargers
 |
||||
| Jets 17 @ Dolphins 9 Sun, 10/3/04 3:15pm CBS
|
Jets
 |
Jets
|
Jets
|
Jets
|
||||
| Rams 24 @ 49ers 14 Sun, 10/3/04 7:30pm ESPN
|
Rams
 |
Rams
|
Rams
|
Rams
|
||||
| Chiefs 27 @ Ravens 24 Mon, 10/4/04 8:00pm ABC
|
Ravens
 |
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
||||
| Week Record | 8 - 6 0.571  | 8 - 6 0.571 | 8 - 6 0.571 | 9 - 5 0.643  | ||||
| Season Record | 36 - 24 0.600 | 36 - 24 0.600 | 37 - 23 0.617 | 36 - 24 0.600 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 369 - 224 - 1 0.621 | 328 - 265 - 1 0.552 | 353 - 240 - 1 0.594 | 358 - 235 - 1 0.603 |
Browns
Eagles
Giants
Raiders
Jaguars
Steelers
Falcons
Saints
Broncos
Chargers
Jets
Rams
Ravens
| Week: | 10 - 4 0.714 |
| Season: | 34 - 26 0.567 |
| Lifetime: | 359 - 234 - 1 0.604 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
Rams 24 @ 49ers 14
Jeremy: Knibb High Football Rules!Matt: I actually did pick San Francisco, before I picked against them. St. Louis 14 - San Francisco 11.
Jon: St. Louis just has too good of an offnese for me to pick against them. I know that the rams aren't as good as they used to be, but San Francisco is in a hurting place right now.
Sarah: Um.... remember the 80's and 90's when the 49ers were good? I have already forgotten. That's how bad this team is. They are the suckiest team out there possibly. Maybe even worse than the Cardinals. The Chargers are actually possibly good this year. Not 8-8 good but maybe 5-11 good. Ah, i'm blabbing. St. Louis is not doing that great. Martz is getting in trouble by the press, apparently he was a genius and now he's the crazy uncle who should be kept in the attic. I still think St. Louis will win this one.
Chiefs 27 @ Ravens 24
Jeremy: KC is not good, they weren't even good last year, can we all get over this already?Matt: I'm watching I, Max right now and Max had a line at the beginning that I found funny. I will repeat it for all who care. "Hey Montreal, we must be cousins cause my Uncle Sam is your daddy." Hilarious... K.C. goes to 0-4. Baltimore wins 4 - 2.
Jon: Kansas City? Are you kidding me? Let me tell you why I won't pick them to win. Jamal Lewis. Baltimore defense. On top of that, even when Dominick Davis got injured last game, the Houston Texans still beat the Kansas Cities.
Sarah: Wow. Talk about doing a 180. The Chiefs started last year 9-0 or something. Now they're 0-3. That sux. FOR THEM! ha. Baltimore has a very good defense and they should be able to stop this offense that hasn't done diddly in the red zone. I feel bad for good players who play on bad teams. This may end up being the case for Priest Holmes. Maybe he'll retire early, I mean afterall, he was going to do it last year.
 | Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/30/2004 @ 07:07:08 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| I see I'm the only one to pick the Arizona upset |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Sarah - 1866 Posts 09/30/2004 @ 07:31:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I went once again with the San Diego upset. Maybe one of these days it'll happen. "it's raining men!" |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 09/30/2004 @ 08:34:27 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I forgot about the debates and just turned them on about ten minutes ago. Has Kerry been owning Bush this bad the entire time? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 1866 Posts 09/30/2004 @ 08:35:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| This Bush guy is a moron. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/30/2004 @ 08:43:16 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Lockbox |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/30/2004 @ 08:48:32 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Bush needs to bring up the flip flopper issue a bit more. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah 09/30/2004 @ 08:50:20 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Oh MY GOOD LORD! Hey Matt- Guess who registered to vote and who's now going to vote democrat for everything because this jackass is a moron? yea that's right- me! This guy is not a good thinker. He's like a little kid. "You can't change your mind." "Well I have to change my mind because I was wrong." "Well you can't change your mind" Great Diversion blah blah blah |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/30/2004 @ 08:54:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Bush has alot of nerve using the phrase "speaking clearly" |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - The cake is a lie!! 09/30/2004 @ 09:12:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| mmm...mmm ma maa mi mmmmi mixed messages. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 2883 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 12:42:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| word |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - From now on, that's how you drive 10/01/2004 @ 01:29:26 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Kerry sucks. If he would get elected and follow through on half the things he promised tonight, taxes would double, and he would be more worried about making popular "global" decisions than doing what's best for the US. Also, he first criticized the spending of $200 billion in Iraq, then later said that Bush wasn't supplying the troops with enough equipment. Does that make any sense to anyone? Anyway... NE, PHI, INDY, CLE, OAK, GB, PITT, CAR, NO, DEN, NYJ, SD, STL, BALT What a weekend for baseball!! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - 1484 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 07:41:45 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Bush isn't a great speaker, I think we all knew that. Fortunatly, I don't vote by how well a person speaks. Bush was right to go into Iraq. Saddam disregarded 16 UN resoultions, and was a threat. When given a 17th and final chance to comply, he failed to do so. Bush, Blair, and others decided enough was enough. If you threaten serious consequences and don't follow through, what kind of message does that send the bad guys? There is nothing wrong with diplomacy, but unless its backed up with some force, it is useless. If Kerry was President, Saddam would still be in power, benefittng from the corrupt UN-oil for food program. Fortunatly Bush is President and Saddam is gone, and the world knows that the U.S. will not take anymore crap from evil dictators. Because of this Libya has begun to disarm, and other regimes will think twice before trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world. I know I kind of rambled there, hopefully it makes some sense. Although, what do I know...I'm not a very articulate speaker myself, so apparently, I'm a moron. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - The cake is a lie!! 10/01/2004 @ 08:02:26 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You also aren't trying to convice 50 million viewers to choose you for the most important position in the world. You are correct that diplomacy needs the threat of force behind it, which is why kerry voted to give Bush that leverage, but we didn't do everything possible and Saddam was not a clear enough threat to us to shoulder 90% of the work load and send people like Carl into harms way. Kerry is upset that the war cost 200 billion, but now that it's on he thinks the troops should have seen a bigger share of that. I didn't hear Kerry say anything that would effect taxes with the exception of shutting down our nuclear bunker buster program...which would lower them if anything. ps Who said what's best for the world and what's best for the US are two different things? pps Matt, you forgot about Poland. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/01/2004 @ 08:03:47 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Strategery |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 08:07:28 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| ppps By the standards that made Sadaam a threat we've got a lot of wars in our future. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Pie Racist 10/01/2004 @ 10:02:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
When are you leaving Alex? I guess better yet when do you expect to be there? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - Ombudsman 10/01/2004 @ 10:07:18 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
What is everything possible? 12 years, 17 U.N. Resolutions and economic sanctions seems like a lot to me. More talking wouldn't have worked, especially when Saddam was making money off of France, Russia, and the oil for food program. He had been doing well for himself for years inspite of the UN's "threats". He knew the UN had no backbone and he banked on that staying the same. He wasn't going to one day wake up and say "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider." P.S. Jeremy, I dont know where you got that whole best for the US/best for the world thing, because I didnt say it. The truth is that the interest of the U.S. and the World are often the same, unfortunatly when it comes to things like terrorism, the U.S. has the biggest target on its back and we must be able to defend ourselves against it. P.P.S. Don't knock Poland, they've lived under the Nazis and under Communism. They know what it's like to be opressed and are giving what the can to free the Iraqi people. P.P.P.S. If more wars are needed to get rid of terrorist threats, then more are needed. But by winning in Iraq and showing the leaders of these nations that they cant win if they decide to harbor and sponsor terror, then many of these potential conflicts can be avoided. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:10:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I was responding to you and Alex. I think Bush made it pretty clear he doesn't care about the UN. You can't say Bush was right to ignore the UN and go to war then justify the War by saying Saddam was ignoring the UN. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:13:34 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| And.....I wasnt knocking Poland, just making reference to the debate. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - 2098 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:17:12 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ok, so it wasn't likely that Sadaam was going to invade the US anytime soon. Still he was a bad man who refused to listening to the rest of the world. We have taken 90% of the work load because we have 90% of the force and power of all the democratic countries. And it's true that if we strictly follow the same standards that led to war with Saddam there's probably a number of other countries and dictators that would qualify, but Sadaam was clearly the most well-known, most stuborn and unwilling to cooperate, and longest running threat. Hopefully making an example of Sadaam and Iraq will have an effect on other countries (such as Libya), and now the world realizes that we mean business (at least after the 17th UN resolution is ignored). Also, one of Kerry's big points seemed to be that we needed to better our diplomatic relations with other countries and he criticized Bush for not doing so well enough before we went to war in Iraq. But then he later said that he wants to bypass the 6 party talks with North Korea and open up bilateral communications with whatever that guys name is. Seems contradictory to me, and agree with Bush that keeping China involved in those talks is extremely important. Kerry is always talking way more health care, drugs for the elderly, last night he said he would create new troop divisions that wouldn't go to Iraq, he would get better and more equipment to the troops in Iraq, he would increase funding for the training of Iraqius (sp?), he wants to personally tour the globe and collect every piece of nuclear material every made (how come biological and chemical weapons were never mentioned last nigh?), those things cost money. Seeings as the US seems to be the most hated country in the world, we need to hunt down terrorists and be more concered about certain other dictators and countries more than the rest of the world. Why should France and Germany care about terrorists and nuclear weapons? If they're satisfied to sit around and throw sanctions and resolutions at countries and then not doing anyting about it when the don't listen, then fine. But the US doesn't have that luxury, therefore what's best the US is not necessarily what's best for the rest of the world. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - 2098 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:19:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The UN is not useful when it comes time to fight a war. They came provide humanitarian support and pass sanctions, but that's about it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - Talk to me Goose 10/01/2004 @ 10:20:15 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I think I'm meeting u guys at the church at 7. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:21:29 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Which is where getting rid of the tax cut for the rich comes it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - Refactor Mercilessly 10/01/2004 @ 10:26:33 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I doubt whether that will cover it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - 1484 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:26:58 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The reason some of us don't care for the U.N. right now is that they allowed themselves to be ignored by Saddam for 12 years. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - 1484 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:31:16 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| So everybody should get a tax cut except the rich? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Interslice District Manager 10/01/2004 @ 10:45:48 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| First of all I meant get rid of cuts they already get, secondly to an extent, yes. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - 2098 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 10:45:56 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
This is a less serious comment, just something my brain stumbled on. When they were talking about the war in Iraq it was brought up that the borders were not being policed effectively and more terrorist groups and such were coming into Iraq which is why fighting has stayed at the level it has and possibly increased. Now I believe Kerry first stated that as a problem, but I don't think they really talked about it too much. It seems to me though that if we are fighting a global war on terrorism that it's not such a bad thing if the terrorists are coming out of hiding and confronting us. I suppose it doesn't help the situation in Iraq, but it seems better than having to try and keep intelligence on these groups as they are scattered around and in hiding. I think maybe that's why Bush kind of let that slide by and never really responded it to it. That's more of a conspiracy theory though than it is part of why I'm voting for Bush. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5111 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 11:15:06 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Bush did kind of hint at that, but the same thing would have happened if we took out Osama, you know, the guy that actually attacked us. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - 2098 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 11:21:43 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| true |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| icbeast - 2098 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 11:40:08 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
But here's another conspiracy theory. We've supposedly captured 75% of Osama's leading men. Osama himself seems to be more of the "charasmatic" (notice the quotes) leader than the real brains or brawn behind anything. So two scenarios: 1) We capture him, one of his understudies steps up and rallies around "Remember the Osamao" and a circle begins. 2) We capture his top guys, his power and skills are weakened, he becomes desperate and makes a mistake, and we crush his ring of terror. Sometimes cutting off the head of the beast kills it, and sometimes two new heads grow back. I need more ties, because apparently a white dress shirt, dark gray tie, khaki pants, and doc marten's don't go together. (I almost forgot the word shirt, lol) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Micah - 367 Posts 10/01/2004 @ 04:53:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
First of all, Osama Bin Laden is not just a figurehead. He is incredibly rich and doesn't spend any of his money on Escalades and spinner rims. Also, you are right that Kerry's programs are going to cost money. That is why you should never elect a democrat. because they will just spend and spend and then we will end up with trillions of dollars in deficits and the country will go to shit economically.....oh wait. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Prince Fielder, the largest vegetarian since Stegosaurus 10/01/2004 @ 05:02:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
"The enemy attacked us" said Bush. I thought Osama was the enemy. Did Sadaam attack us? The 9/11 Commission says he didn't. Deceptive? I think so. Pitt, Indy, New England, GB, Houston, Philly, Wash, Carolina, New Orleans, Denver, NY Jets, Tenn, Baltimore I'm 29-17 |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/01/2004 @ 07:04:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11, but the war on Terror isn't limited to just those who planned and executed the attack on us. While the 9/11 commission did not find any Saddam -al-qaida connection in regards to the 9/11 attacks, Saddam and his regime had ties to terrorist groups, including al-qaida. Combine these ties with the pre-war intelligence telling Bush that Saddam had WMD's and the threat of Saddam passing weapons to al-qaida had to be taken seriously. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 2883 Posts 10/02/2004 @ 09:31:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| ...and freeze |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 10/03/2004 @ 12:28:18 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Perhaps all that is true, but we should have focused on Osama |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 2883 Posts 10/03/2004 @ 01:01:56 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| and Moss got fined, was it legit? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - 1484 Posts 10/03/2004 @ 08:06:04 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| While the media may have "lost focus" on Afghanistan and Osama because of the Iraq war, that doesn't mean Bush did. Kerry may say that Iraq hurt the war in Afghanistan, but I believe Gen. Franks has said differently. As far as I've heard, the military commanders for Afghanistan have recieved all the troops that they said they needed. |
Yours: | |
Giants 14 @ Packers 7
Jeremy: Bye weeks suck...so do the Packers.Matt: Sarah, I think you mean LAMBERT Field. Giants win 27 - 12.
Jon: This game is a tough one. I think the Giants can take this one, but I don't know if I'm letting wishful thinking get in the way of thinking through this. On the other hand, I kind of think the Packers' offense should be able to do well against the Giants. Although it might just be me trying to do reverse wishful thinking so I really don't know what's going to happen. Not that I really know what's going to happen all the other times. Home teams have to have some advantage, no?
Sarah: Kurt Warner returns to the FROZEN TUNDRA of LAMBEAU FIELD. Well, you can never go home. Besides, the Packers need a win. I mean, really, really need a win. We also need some secondary. I mean, really, really need some secondary. Remember that hit on Manning, Eli in the first week? Yea that was pretty sweet. I feel bad for Warner because he was like this QB that was on top of the world for like 3 years and then BAM! He sucked. Apparently he did ok last week, but I am pretty sure the Giants are having some emotional problems so I think they will crumble. I still think the Packer's offense played awesome. I wish they could do that every week. Why don't they? Cream Corn!