NFL 2007 Season Week 2 Picks

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/14/2007 @ 10:43:06 AM
Lots of variety in our picks so far.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 12:16:08 PM
Well I have personally been video taping everyone's picks.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 09/14/2007 @ 01:14:15 PM
You should make a picks distribution display. If you want to that is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 02:28:20 PM
If I had any idea what that meant I could think about it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 06:20:11 PM
It's Angels in the Outfield Jon		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 06:39:53 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 02:28:20 PM If I had any idea what that meant I could think about it. Like on yahoo! I can lookup that only 22.8% of the pickers picked the Packers to win last week. Now that there's 10 people doing picks some computed numbers would be easier to look at then comparing everyone's picks to everyone else's picks.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:00:45 PM
Sarah Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 06:20:11 PM It's Angels in the Outfield Jon Exactly. I thought about referencing that too. Points for you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:08:57 PM
I thought there was an implied "angels in the outfield" reference but I thought it would cheapen it if I pointed it out. I demand points.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:11:43 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 10:43:06 AM Lots of variety in our picks so far. Yeah I suspected there might be a lot of similarity this week. For one just because the games seem to be set up that way, and as an offshoot of that, week 2 has us work mostly off of just last week. It gives matchups of 1-0 teams vs. 0-1 teams and it's hard for anyone to go out on a limb, even though it's not a big limb. And when it's a tie record situation usually one team still seems better. In short, it seems less cloudy even though after the week is played, we'll see it wasn't as cut and dried (past tense, props to micah) as it seemed probably. Of course, the most glaring disparity in the trend seems to be that most of us picked the winless rams against the 49ers, who won. But if you watched the monday night game that doesn't seem like such a stretch. Maybe I'll look back and see if week 2 has always meant similar picks, but I don't think I'll actually compute it relative to other weeks because that would be time consuming.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:12:02 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 11:08:57 PM I thought there was an implied "angels in the outfield" reference but I thought it would cheapen it if I pointed it out. I demand points. I'm fresh out. Implied or implode?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 09/14/2007 11:12:43 pm

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:22:07 PM
I looked. Week 2's have actually had pretty good variety. Maybe it's just the way these broke down. Maybe it's because we take it a bit more seriously than the first year or two, but then again, the recent years had variety. I guess my theory doesn't have a lot going for it. Of course, it's not a great sample size since it's only four of us for many years and we usually differ on the Minnesota and Green Bay games anyway, and I think matt did his picks blindfolded for the first four years.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:24:58 PM
To Jeremy's credit though, I think his comments are extra good this week. You know, if people actually ever read them.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 09/15/2007 @ 12:10:51 AM
Jon Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 11:22:07 PM and I think matt did his picks blindfolded for the first four years. Actually, I did (and still do) my picks based on my perceptions of the NFL circa 1996.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 09/15/2007 @ 12:32:50 AM
Look for PackOne to take a slight edge this week.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/15/2007 @ 09:54:19 PM
Commet about last week's Packer game: Mason's Crosby's first career field attempt was a 53-yarder which he drilled. I wonder how many kickers have their first career attempt over 50 yards, and I wonder of those kickers, how many make that long debut. Anyone care to dig this one up? This is especially interesting because Should Crosby go on to have a long career, he could run the possibility of never kicking a longer field goal than his first ever attempt. I'm guessing that has never happened before, at least not in the "modern" era of kickers (meaning the soccer-style kicking).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 12:16:58 AM
Hey Carl, pick your last game would you. You get to be the first person to use the new fangled picker. Let me know how it goes. (Also, don't feel pressured to make the pick if you are abstaining due to your covering of the game in the booth. I know those guys like to remain impartial until 9 seconds into the game, when they declare a favorite.)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/16/2007 12:23:21 am

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/16/2007 @ 10:12:53 AM
So how is that with the "computations" then, Alex?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 09/16/2007 @ 12:06:56 PM
Can I still make 1:00 game picks? Steelers 49ers Bengals Panthers Colts Saint Jags Packers		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 12:17:06 PM
You need to call them 12:00 games since the Nut is located in the CST location, so that negates your picks right away. Plus the timestamp shows you made them almost 7 minutes after the start of the games, which gives you a slight edge over the rest of us.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 09/16/2007 @ 12:38:24 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 09/16/2007 @ 10:12:53 AM So how is that with the "computations" then, Alex? Winner!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 01:26:41 PM
Games start at 1:05		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 01:33:54 PM
they go to the games at 12. still late		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/16/2007 @ 02:45:26 PM
So do other teams actively TRY to lose to the Packers?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 03:10:21 PM
What a weird wonderful wacky week so far.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 03:38:08 PM
I'd say that was a rather dominating performance by the Packers in every aspect of the game. Hurt or not, Eli never seemed comfortable. I mean, sure, he did throw the ball directly to the packers defensive lineman at the end there, but man, what way to play on the road. For all you Thompson haters out there, the Packers are 2-0 because of their defense, which is what people seem to complain the most about in terms of his personnel decision making. Anyway, Favre looked brilliant despite only having 1 wide receiver out there. The Packers are 2-0 for the first time in a while. Bring on the Chargers.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/16/2007 @ 03:47:25 PM
You think Justin Harrell helped us out there?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Sarah screwed with this at 09/16/2007 3:48:53 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 04:01:30 PM
Hey, a questionable (or downright bad) pick here and there is inevitable (and he still might turnout to be ok), but from my vantage point their defense looks as good as it has looked in a long time.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/16/2007 @ 04:58:16 PM
But maybe if we're doing alright on defense, an offensive pick might've helped 10-fold?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/16/2007 @ 08:21:51 PM
My point is that while Justin Harrel may not have been the smartest pick (although who knows, he could be starting and dominating in 2 years), the alternative may very well also have been another defensive player. Anyway, the Packers are 2-0 and that's really all I care about at this point. And in my opinion, the Packers' success this year is going to come in large part because of their defense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 07:35:41 AM
My point is we could've picked an offensive player.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 09:20:03 AM
Scott Wrote - 09/16/2007 @ 08:21:51 PM My point is that while Justin Harrel may not have been the smartest pick (although who knows, he could be starting and dominating in 2 years), the alternative may very well also have been another defensive player. Anyway, the Packers are 2-0 and that's really all I care about at this point. And in my opinion, the Packers' success this year is going to come in large part because of their defense. It also really depends if you feel both wins were truly wins, or if they were simply a decision of which team was lucky enough to be on top after the time ran out. I didn't get to see week 1 until the last 3 minutes and not much of week 2 either, but from what I hear, week 1 wasn't the best show in town.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 09/17/2007 9:20:32 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/17/2007 @ 12:13:16 PM
Week 2 was a Packer team beating the Giants handily. Sure the giants made some mistakes, but 35-13 is hardly a fluke.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 12:35:09 PM
Well, let's say hypothetically the Giants don't decide to get two penalties (Skockey's 'spike' and Toomer's knee-dive/leg-swatting/shoving-hitting thing he did as if to say "I'm not stopping and I'm just going to try different things until I get a penalty") that end their drives and Eli doesn't inexplicably lob an INT to a d-lineman 2 feet away. The game could have played out very differently. It was a resounding defeat to be sure, but the Giants deserve a little blame for ensuring their defeat. You can't always just subtract the scores and use that number to decide if one team dominated another or not. Sometimes games are closer than they "were", they look like blowouts when a team was in fact consistently able to drive the ball, other times a team crushes another team but some garbage time scoring against the second string D playing prevent defense lets the team close the gap a bit. Let's say a team has the ball on the one yard line with 1 second left and are 7 points down. Instead of scoring they throw an int that gets returned for a td. Someone looking at just the score the next day would call a 14 point victory a pretty solid margin, when in reality the game came down to one last-second play over a yard. In other words the packers clearly won, and deserved to win, but they didn't outright dominate the other team as a 35-13 margin would generally indicate. The Giants were putting together consistent drives on the defense, until they did something stupid to kill their own drive. (And yes, I know a consistent drive in and of itself is worth 0 points) Edit: The Lions-Vikings game was a good example of a game where a close score doesn't really tell the story. The Lions drove up, down, and allover, on the Vikings, who themselves looked completely baffled on offense. The Lions had their way with the Vikings all day on both sides of the ball, but circumstance and some bad breaks sent the game to OT. (After the Vikings could have won on a Longwell kick off the post, no less.)		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 09/17/2007 12:48:19 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 01:00:29 PM
yeah, but I watched the game, I'm not looking at 35-13 and being like, wow, 23 points is a blowout. It actually didn't even seem that close to be honest, especially when it seemed the like the Packers offense couldn't hardly be stopped in the 2nd half. Either way, the Packers got 2 wins against teams that I hard marked down as losses at the beginning of the season. I'm not sounding the Super Bowl horn or anything, but like we hear a lot on this site, a win is a win.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 09/17/2007 @ 01:23:35 PM
A win is a win, but I still would have felt a little dirty had the Vikings pulled it out. Scott Wrote - 09/17/2007 @ 01:00:29 PM It actually didn't even seem that close to be honest That's called being a "homer".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/17/2007 1:27:49 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 07:05:46 PM
can we just agree that the Packers are indeed the best team in the League and that Brett Favre is the best Favre that ever Favred.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 09/17/2007 @ 07:21:58 PM
word		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 09:35:59 AM
By the way, I declare an * on Micah's record for the week, and therefor declare Alex the winner by whatever margin an asterisk is worth.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 09:41:06 AM
your asterisk is worth nothing. It's not Micah's fault the Eagles couldn't cut it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 09/19/2007 @ 09:46:52 AM
What in the hell are you talking about? What do the Eagles have to do with anything?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 12:08:25 PM
I figured you were upset that the Eagles lost, since "they weren't supposed to" and made a crack at Micah for picking them and tying Alex (and then making Alex the winnner). It was a really nice piece of deductive reasoning, I'd say		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/19/2007 @ 12:10:28 PM
No, Micah didn't get his picks in on time and they were granted to him after the fact.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 12:42:20 PM
One, Micah is on the East Coast, where they have different time. Two, Micah lives in New York, where aparently their minutes are different than ours. It's a wonder he made his picks at all!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 12:51:36 PM
Jeremy Wrote - 09/19/2007 @ 09:35:59 AM By the way, I declare an * on Micah's record for the week, and therefor declare Alex the winner by whatever margin an asterisk is worth. I conquer. I mean concur.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat! 09/19/2007 @ 10:10:26 PM
I actually went on Yahoo after I made the picks and the only information that was showed was that they Giants were in the red zone. Being that I picked the Packers, you can asterisk all you want....my conscience is clear :) We do have very different minutes here, but we definitely do not grow big corn here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/20/2007 @ 03:57:30 AM
Micah Wrote - 09/19/2007 @ 10:10:26 PM I actually went on Yahoo after I made the picks and the only information that was showed was that they Giants were in the red zone. Being that I picked the Packers, you can asterisk all you want....my conscience is clear :) Ah Ha! You picked the Packers! Everyone of course knows that pick was informed by the happenings in the game up to that point. Even if you didn't look at Yahoo until after. Why do we know? because you clearly followed the second most famous rule in football picks. The first is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well-known is to "always pick the Packers when playing in New York and allowing an early red zone drive!" Your witness.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/20/2007 @ 06:18:22 AM
Here's an interesting survey to take.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/20/2007 @ 07:21:59 AM
I particularily like question number 7. Or that the Giants problems are all related to Eli. Classic.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/20/2007 7:23:13 am

	Sarah - So's your face 09/20/2007 @ 07:48:05 AM
LT IS a bum and my Fantasy team IS in shambles Edit: We all knew about Favre before this season, we all answered D prior to this even being a question.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah screwed with this at 09/20/2007 7:54:11 am