NFL 2007 Season Week 10 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Bills 13 @ Dolphins 10 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm CBS
|
Bills
 |
Bills
|
Bills
|
Bills
|
||||
| Rams 37 @ Saints 29 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm FOX
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
Saints
|
||||
| Falcons 20 @ Panthers 13 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm FOX
|
Panthers
 |
Falcons
 |
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
||||
| Vikings 0 @ Packers 34 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm FOX
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Packers
 |
||||
| Eagles 33 @ Redskins 25 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm FOX
|
Redskins
 |
Redskins
|
Redskins
|
Redskins
|
||||
| Broncos 27 @ Chiefs 11 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm CBS
|
Chiefs
 |
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
||||
| Jaguars 28 @ Titans 13 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm CBS
|
Titans
 |
Titans
|
Titans
|
Titans
|
||||
| Browns 28 @ Steelers 31 Final Sun, 11/11/07 12:00pm CBS
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Bengals 21 @ Ravens 7 Final Sun, 11/11/07 3:05pm CBS
|
Ravens
 |
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
Bengals
 |
||||
| Cowboys 31 @ Giants 20 Final Sun, 11/11/07 3:15pm FOX
|
Cowboys
 |
Giants
 |
Cowboys
|
Giants
|
||||
| Bears 17 @ Raiders 6 Final Sun, 11/11/07 3:15pm FOX
|
Bears
 |
Bears
|
Bears
|
Bears
|
||||
| Lions 21 @ Cardinals 31 Final Sun, 11/11/07 3:15pm FOX
|
Lions
 |
Lions
|
Lions
|
Lions
|
||||
| Colts 21 @ Chargers 23 Final Sun, 11/11/07 7:15pm NBC
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| 49ers 0 @ Seahawks 24 Final Mon, 11/12/07 7:30pm ESPN
|
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
||||
| Week Record | 5 - 9 0.357  | 5 - 9 0.357 | 5 - 9 0.357 | 6 - 8 0.429 | ||||
| Season Record | 87 - 57 0.604 | 82 - 62 0.569 | 89 - 55 0.618 | 94 - 50 0.653 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 929 - 549 - 1 0.628 | 845 - 633 - 1 0.571 | 909 - 569 - 1 0.615 | 905 - 573 - 1 0.612 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Raiders
Cardinals
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 5 - 9 0.357 |
| Season: | 85 - 59 0.590 |
| Lifetime: | 254 - 157 0.618 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Giants
Bears
Cardinals
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 94 - 50 0.653 |
| Lifetime: | 244 - 166 0.595 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Cardinals
Chargers
Seahawks
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 88 - 56 0.611 |
| Lifetime: | 245 - 163 0.601 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Broncos
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Giants
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 5 - 9 0.357 |
| Season: | 34 - 36 0.486 |
| Lifetime: | 98 - 80 0.551 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Broncos
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 89 - 55 0.618 |
| Lifetime: | 89 - 55 0.618 |
Saints
Falcons
Packers
Eagles
Broncos
Jaguars
Steelers
Bengals
Giants
Bears
Cardinals
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 11 - 3 0.786 |
| Season: | 87 - 57 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 87 - 57 0.604 |
![IMG_3063[1].jpg](/images/thumbnail.php?height=18&file=/uploads/IMG_3063[1].jpg)
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Bengals
Cowboys
Raiders
Cardinals
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 59 - 42 0.584 |
| Lifetime: | 59 - 42 0.584 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Raiders
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 83 - 48 0.634 |
| Lifetime: | 83 - 48 0.634 |
Saints
Panthers
Vikings
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Bengals
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 53 - 29 0.646 |
| Lifetime: | 53 - 29 0.646 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Bengals
Cowboys
Raiders
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 56 - 26 0.683 |
| Lifetime: | 56 - 26 0.683 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Bengals
Cowboys
Raiders
Cardinals
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 44 - 23 0.657 |
| Lifetime: | 44 - 23 0.657 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Jaguars
Steelers
Ravens
Giants
Bears
Lions
Colts
49ers
| Week: | 4 - 10 0.286 |
| Season: | 14 - 14 0.500 |
| Lifetime: | 14 - 14 0.500 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 16 - 12 0.571 |
| Lifetime: | 16 - 12 0.571 |
Saints
Panthers
Vikings
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 5 - 9 0.357 |
| Season: | 15 - 13 0.536 |
| Lifetime: | 15 - 13 0.536 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Chiefs
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Lifetime: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Redskins
Broncos
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
49ers
| Week: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Season: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
| Lifetime: | 6 - 8 0.429 |
Saints
Falcons
Packers
Redskins
Broncos
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Lifetime: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
Saints
Panthers
Packers
Eagles
Broncos
Titans
Steelers
Ravens
Cowboys
Bears
Lions
Colts
Seahawks
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Lifetime: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
STL @ NOR - No Pick
ATL @ CAR - No Pick
MIN @ GB - No Pick
PHI @ WAS - No Pick
DEN @ KAN - No Pick
JAC @ TEN - No Pick
CLE @ PIT - No Pick
CIN @ BAL - No Pick
DAL @ NYG - No Pick
CHI @ OAK - No Pick
DET @ ARI - No Pick
IND @ SD - No Pick
Seahawks
| Week: | 1 - 0 1.000 |
| Season: | 1 - 0 1.000 |
| Lifetime: | 1 - 0 1.000 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
Colts 21 @ Chargers 23
Jeremy: So...the Chargers just suck, right? Tough loss last week for the Colts, they had the whole non-Boston world pulling for them.Matt: If only it were last year.
Sarah: The Colts have got to win out if they can even hope for a chance to get the #1 seed. (Assuming someone can beat the Patriots down the stretch) The Chargers are just a bad team, end of story.
Jon: Who knows how this one could turn out. I mean Indianapolis is much better, but San Diego is good sometimes. Still, if they don't let last week break the flow, the Colts should end up winning.
49ers 0 @ Seahawks 24
Jeremy: Weren't the 49ers supposed to be good?Matt: If only it were 1986.
Sarah: I think the 49ers were supposed to be good, turns out that they're not. But really, who cares? It's Pack vs Vikings!
Jon: Has anyone heard from Frank Gore recently? Is he playing? Again, I'm asking.
 | RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 11/06/2007 @ 09:54:37 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| lets go AP Kick some arse |
Yours:
 
Total:  Rated 3 times. |
|
 | Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 11/06/2007 @ 10:59:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| For this week I can see the teams who are around .500 beating the team who is 1-2 games ahead of them. Then I see the deficit in their scoring- for example, the Browns are 5-3 and have 227 points to 233 allowed... ouch |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 11/06/2007 @ 05:49:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Larry Ned - Classic. Actually AP also has a case of the "fumbles." |
Yours:
Total: Rated 5 times. |
|
|
| Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/06/2007 @ 11:46:06 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 11/06/2007 @ 05:49:40 PM Larry Ned - Classic. Actually AP also has a case of the "fumbles." Why does Jeremy get 5 nuts? It was my joke. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 4 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Prince Fielder, the largest vegetarian since Stegosaurus 11/07/2007 @ 12:10:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Matt Wrote - 11/06/2007 @ 11:46:06 PM Jeremy Wrote - 11/06/2007 @ 05:49:40 PM Why does Jeremy get 5 nuts? It was my joke.Larry Ned - Classic. Actually AP also has a case of the "fumbles." While I generally don't look to highly upon nut complaints, this one is a legitimate gripe. I awarded it 5 nuts. |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 3 times. |
|
|
| RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 11/07/2007 @ 07:46:46 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| the new guy musch is dumb.. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Matt - Ombudsman 11/07/2007 @ 11:41:37 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| It's good to have the Page 3 Turkey back. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5014 Posts 11/07/2007 @ 11:53:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Now all we needs is some pilgrim hats haphazardly slapped on our pictures and it will be just like old times. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 2 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - Brett Favre going to the Super Bowl =] 11/08/2007 @ 07:29:04 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I have heard some people say things about Bret Favre in cold weather and let me tell u some stats...Invariably at his best in cold weather, a surprising attribute for one who hails from the south, Favre owns a perfect 27-0 record at home (22-0 regular season, 5-0 playoffs) when the game-time temperature is 34 degrees or below (23 games at Lambeau Field, 4 games at Milwaukee County Stadium). quote from -------------------------------------------------------http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2001/03/03-02.html......... this was as of 2000.... let me get u one up to date.... here it is "Given his Mississippi roots, Favre's record in frozen Green Bay is most surprising: 40 wins and five losses in games played below 35 degrees."---------------------http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/27135...... so now what did he say..... Scott Wrote - 11/04/2007 @ 07:13:13 PM im pretty sure the packers and favre will do juuuusssttt fine..... dont you think? What it comes down to is this, while the Packers have only played one team with a winning record so far, nothing they are doing seems to be doing anything to stop Favre. I hope they can continue this trend as the weather gets cold. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - 100 Posts 11/08/2007 @ 07:32:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| viva la packers!!!!!!!!!!! and long live the favre legacy=] |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - Brett Favre going to the Super Bowl =] 11/08/2007 @ 07:35:24 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Vikings @ Packers Jeremy: In the first game against the Packers Adrian Peterson ran for 100 yards in the first half and was all but benched. He was given a full compliment of carries for the first time last week and did alright. The Vikings better go to AP early and often. The Packers all-pass-no-run offense should, theoretically, suffer now that it's getting colder. In other words, expect all week in Wisconsin to be 30 degrees, until Sunday when it will be a perfect 75. this is why i had those stats cause jeremy was talking out if his a$$....... lol.... theoritcally hahjahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Carlos44ec - 1204 Posts 11/08/2007 @ 08:08:15 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Don't worry fellas, I have this one: First, it would be "¡ viven los packers !" Second, "theoretically" Third and most importantly, Jeremy always talks from his arse- and not theoretically, really. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Carlos44ec perfected this at 11/08/2007 12:14:22 pm | ||
|
| Carlos44ec - 1204 Posts 11/08/2007 @ 08:08:44 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| on second thought, I should address the Favre legacy. What precisely do you mean by legacy? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5014 Posts 11/08/2007 @ 08:53:25 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The Packers playing better than the other team overall in cold weather and a passing game taking a statistical hit in cold weather are almost completely independent of each other. You can throw for 0 yards and still win the game. BreTT Favre could be the greatest cold weather QB the world has even known, that doesn't mean he doesn't perform better when the weather is pleasant. (Plus they've lost lots of cold weather games, that stat just keeps sliding to 1 degree less than whatever they just lost at.) I don't think you'll find many people who will argue that the importance of a running game is increased when the weather gets cold. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jon - many posts 11/09/2007 @ 03:23:28 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Personally, I don't need many stats to know that Brett Favre is an excellent, dare I say, all-time great quarterback. So, really I don't care a ton, one way or the other, how a stat makes him look. But while we're here, I do have something to say about the weather thing. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if that stat showed anything other than Favre having a great record in cold weather? I mean, he's played on exactly one sub .500 team in his career. So he's got a great overall record anyway. He plays for Green Bay. So how many of those cold weather games do you think have come at home? Can I get a show of e-hands for the number of people who would expect someone with a career full of winning to have a bad, or even average, record in a farily large subset of games played mostly in his home stadium? I'm sure if you don't know any better you're probably ready to write a respnse to this favre bashing I've been doing. But just to ease your minds, this rant is actually about statistics that I think are underwhelming. Sports, and many other areas of life are full of them. This one just happened to be here. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jon messed with this 4 times, last at 11/09/2007 4:46:05 am | ||
 | noel 11/09/2007 @ 07:29:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Brett Favre is the greatest quarterback in the cold weather. Tony Romo is going to be the next one in line that is one of the greatest quarterbacks in the league. I believe that the cowboys are going to win over the giants because of what Dallas defense is doing so far. They have improved on their defense. Packers will win it on Sunday at lambeau field because adrian peterson is not going to be able to run against the packers defense front line. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - 100 Posts 11/09/2007 @ 07:31:17 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
] Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/08/2007 @ 08:08:15 AM Don't worry fellas, I have this one: First, it would be "¡ viven los packers !" Second, "theoretically" Third and most importantly, Jeremy always talks from his arse- and not theoretically, really. is there a reason you must correct me? do you think making fun of me by correcting my grammer is actually funny? Come on dude grow up you know exactly what i mean.... Carlos44ec Wrote - 11/08/2007 @ 08:08:44 AM on second thought, I should address the Favre legacy. What precisely do you mean by legacy? hmmmm let see here...he was a 3 time MVP winner....... leads records with TD Passes... and interceptions....interceptions arent really good thought i just knew i had to put it in there...and has thrown most of this 2007 season with over 300 passing yards...go to http://profiles.incredible-people.com/brett-favre/ to find out more.... Jeremy Wrote - 11/08/2007 @ 08:53:25 AM The Packers playing better than the other team overall in cold weather and a passing game taking a statistical hit in cold weather are almost completely independent of each other. You can throw for 0 yards and still win the game. BreTT Favre could be the greatest cold weather QB the world has even known, that doesn't mean he doesn't perform better when the weather is pleasant. (Plus they've lost lots of cold weather games, that stat just keeps sliding to 1 degree less than whatever they just lost at.) I don't think you'll find many people who will argue that the importance of a running game is increased when the weather gets cold. lol i beg to differ..... brett favre is THE BEST QB in the cold weather.... i think someone who would stand a chance would be....Tom Brady....the running game in the cold..... lol.... where is that logic? I mean the packers i dont think will change for the negative in the cold weather i think they will remain the same, or possibly get better... Jon Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 03:23:28 AM So how many of those cold weather games do you think have come at home? Can I get a show of e-hands for the number of people who would expect someone with a career full of winning to have a bad, or even average, record in a farily large subset of games played mostly in his home stadium? his record was 27-0 AT HOME in 2000 when degrees were below 40...... so im preety sure i posted some where amount of games played at home.... in cold weather.... amount of wins....losses.... all that good stuff.....well im out u guys can go ahead and bash me some more i will defend my favre and packers for eternity!!!!!!!!! |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 11/09/2007 @ 07:46:44 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| you cant say anything to a packers fan, they only have a one track mind |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 11/09/2007 @ 07:52:09 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
JFK- With my corrective posts I was really only picking on you a little bit. Just a bit. It was more of a comment on how you can't make a grammatical error here without Jon or Jeremy (some others, including myself, it seems) correcting it. I merely stated I would comment first. With the Legacy comment, that was just me being facetious, as there is a very strong dividing line between who is and who is not a Packer fan. If you post a comment as seemingly innocent as that, one (or both) sides of the line will come to discuss it. And for the record, I am a prick, and I know that- I just like to be an instigator. So no insults intended, and I apologize. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 11/09/2007 @ 08:50:16 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jfk10intex Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 07:31:17 AM Jeremy Wrote - 11/08/2007 @ 08:53:25 AM The Packers playing better than the other team overall in cold weather and a passing game taking a statistical hit in cold weather are almost completely independent of each other. You can throw for 0 yards and still win the game. BreTT Favre could be the greatest cold weather QB the world has even known, that doesn't mean he doesn't perform better when the weather is pleasant. (Plus they've lost lots of cold weather games, that stat just keeps sliding to 1 degree less than whatever they just lost at.) I don't think you'll find many people who will argue that the importance of a running game is increased when the weather gets cold. lol i beg to differ..... brett favre is THE BEST QB in the cold weather.... i think someone who would stand a chance would be....Tom Brady....the running game in the cold..... lol.... where is that logic? I mean the packers i dont think will change for the negative in the cold weather i think they will remain the same, or possibly get better... Jon Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 03:23:28 AM So how many of those cold weather games do you think have come at home? Can I get a show of e-hands for the number of people who would expect someone with a career full of winning to have a bad, or even average, record in a farily large subset of games played mostly in his home stadium? his record was 27-0 AT HOME in 2000 when degrees were below 40...... so im preety sure i posted some where amount of games played at home.... in cold weather.... amount of wins....losses.... all that good stuff.....well im out u guys can go ahead and bash me some more i will defend my favre and packers for eternity!!!!!!!!! So do you even read the stuff you reply to, or do our comments just get auto run through the "Someone not necessarily even criticizing Farve, but also pointing out obvious statistical trends for reasons he might not be Jesus. I must attack now!" filter that seems to be in roughly 75% of all Packer fans and 98% of all fans under 18? All I said was that passing attacks take a hit in cold weather, I'm not sure how any sane person can argue with that. Let's say Brett Favre averages 250 yards a game and 2 td in warm weather and 210 and 1 td in cold weather. Let's say the next closest QB averages 180 yards and 1 td a game. Do you see now how your claim "Brett Favre is the best cold weather QB" and my claim that passing is harder to do in the cold are completely independent of each other? All Jon is saying is that the Packers have been above average to excellent in the Favre era, and you don't do that without winning a vast majority of your home games. Half the Packers home games have the potential to be pretty cold. Ergo is it really that shocking that they have won every home game under 40 degrees? I mean 38. I mean 37. I mean 35..err 32? I can never remember what the meaningless ever-sliding temperature is down to now-a-days. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 11/09/2007 8:50:57 am | ||
|
| Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 11/09/2007 @ 11:02:14 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Anyone ever play (HS, college, intramural) football here? That ball is D-AMN hard when it is below 35. That man (ANY QB) throws hard and fast. Try catching a large rock lobbed 50 mph through the air with someone wanting to take your head off. These stats for Brett do indeed show some talent- but do not forget the receivers that helped him. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 5014 Posts 11/09/2007 @ 01:10:04 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 03:23:28 AM I'm sure if you don't know any better you're probably ready to write a respnse to this favre bashing I've been doing. But just to ease your minds, this rant is actually about statistics that I think are underwhelming. Sports, and many other areas of life are full of them. This one just happened to be here. The one that always bugs me is when people throw out the stat "80% of accidents are within 15 miles of home" like it's some sort of "you can never let your guard down" type of thing. "Only 1% of accidents occur more than 50 miles away from home." Clearly we are just all better drivers while navigating areas we've never been and likely have no idea how to get around. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that your likelihood of an accident is relatively constant while 80% of your driving is within 15 miles of home and only 1% of your driving is 50+ miles away. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 11/09/2007 @ 02:05:08 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 01:10:04 PM Jon Wrote - 11/09/2007 @ 03:23:28 AM The one that always bugs me is when people throw out the stat "80% of accidents are within 15 miles of home" like it's some sort of "you can never let your guard down" type of thing. "Only 1% of accidents occur more than 50 miles away from home." Clearly we are just all better drivers while navigating areas we've never been and likely have no idea how to get around. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that your likelihood of an accident is relatively constant while 80% of your driving is within 15 miles of home and only 1% of your driving is 50+ miles away.I'm sure if you don't know any better you're probably ready to write a respnse to this favre bashing I've been doing. But just to ease your minds, this rant is actually about statistics that I think are underwhelming. Sports, and many other areas of life are full of them. This one just happened to be here. Jeremy, there you go using reason and logic again, like a fool. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 11/09/2007 @ 03:47:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Do you know why 80% of accidents take place within 15 miles from home? Because the vast majority of people spend the vast majority of their driving time within that mileage, and in the same way, spend only a little bit of time 50+ miles away. This does not include accident stats for people who live in their car. |
Yours: | |
Vikings 0 @ Packers 34
Jeremy: In the first game against the Packers Adrian Peterson ran for 100 yards in the first half and was all but benched. He was given a full compliment of carries for the first time last week and did alright. The Vikings better go to AP early and often. The Packers all-pass-no-run offense should, theoretically, suffer now that it's getting colder. In other words, expect all week in Wisconsin to be 30 degrees, until Sunday when it will be a perfect 75.Matt: A-Pete is good, but he's no Larry Ned.
Sarah: The Vikings aren't exactly well coached. (Did you watch them watch that guy run back the 109 yard td? Hello! Tackle!) So, I am thinking that they will forget to put Adrian Peterson into the game plan. To win 2 road games is quite impressive though. Go Packers!
Jon: Brooks Bollinger needs to start until further notice. Has he been named the starter? Honestly, I'm asking. I can't keep up. The only good thing about Tarvaris Jackson's game lately has been that he doesn't throw interceptions. Of course, that's only because none of his passes are near anyone, regardless of the team they play on. But seriously, I think that's the only downside to him not starting; interceptions will probably go up. Which could be big if the offense doesn't produce on all the other passes and the numerous runs. Still Bollinger makes Minnesota look like an actual team. Otherwise they just look like they're taking up space out there.