NFL 2008 Season Week 12 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 2018 Season Super Bowl Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Bengals 10 @ Steelers 27
Final
Thu, 11/20/08 7:15pm
0 Picks - 0% 18 Picks - 100%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Bills 54 @ Chiefs 31
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
15 Picks - 79% 4 Picks - 21%
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Buccaneers 38 @ Lions 20
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
17 Picks - 89% 2 Picks - 11%
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Panthers 28 @ Falcons 45
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
8 Picks - 42% 11 Picks - 58%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Panthers
Panthers
Falcons
Falcons
Vikings 30 @ Jaguars 12
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
9 Picks - 47% 10 Picks - 53%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Jaguars
Jaguars
Bears 27 @ Rams 3
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
16 Picks - 84% 3 Picks - 16%
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Eagles 7 @ Ravens 36
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
6 Picks - 33% 12 Picks - 67%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Texans 16 @ Browns 6
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
3 Picks - 16% 16 Picks - 84%
Browns
Browns
Texans
Texans
Browns
Browns
Texans
Texans
Jets 34 @ Titans 13
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
8 Picks - 42% 11 Picks - 58%
Titans
Titans
Jets
Jets
Titans
Titans
Jets
Jets
Patriots 48 @ Dolphins 28
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
13 Picks - 68% 6 Picks - 32%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
49ers 22 @ Cowboys 35
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Raiders 31 @ Broncos 10
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 3:05pm
1 Pick - 5% 18 Picks - 95%
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Giants 37 @ Cardinals 29
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 3:15pm
14 Picks - 74% 5 Picks - 26%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Redskins 20 @ Seahawks 17
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 3:15pm
18 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Colts 23 @ Chargers 20
Final
Sun, 11/23/08 7:15pm
17 Picks - 89% 2 Picks - 11%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Packers 29 @ Saints 51
Final
Mon, 11/24/08 7:30pm
10 Picks - 56% 8 Picks - 44%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Week Record13 - 3
0.812
15 - 1
0.938
First Place
11 - 5
0.688
13 - 3
0.812
Season Record116 - 59
0.663
116 - 59
0.663
109 - 66
0.623
112 - 63
0.640
Scotttime Record448 - 261
0.632
427 - 282
0.602
435 - 274
0.614
443 - 266
0.625
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1125 - 651
0.633
1038 - 738
0.585
1105 - 671
0.622
1102 - 674
0.621
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Steelers
Chiefs
Buccaneers
Panthers
Vikings
Bears
Eagles
Browns
Titans
Dolphins
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Seahawks
Colts
Packers

Week:7 - 9
0.438
Season:114 - 61
0.651
Lifetime:451 - 258
0.636
newalex.jpg
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Panthers
Jaguars
Bears
Ravens
Texans
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Cardinals
Redskins
Colts
Packers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:110 - 65
0.629
Lifetime:433 - 275
0.612
images.jpg
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Jaguars
Rams
Ravens
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Cardinals
Redskins
Colts
Packers

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:108 - 66
0.621
Lifetime:434 - 270
0.617
face.bmp
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Panthers
Jaguars
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Packers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:105 - 70
0.600
Lifetime:274 - 168
0.620
avatar2345.jpg
Steelers
Chiefs
Buccaneers
Falcons
Jaguars
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Jets
Dolphins
Cowboys
Raiders
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Packers

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:92 - 83
0.526
Lifetime:256 - 186
0.579
IMG_3063[1].jpg
Steelers
Chiefs
Buccaneers
Panthers
Vikings
Rams
Eagles
Browns
Jets
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Cardinals
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:102 - 73
0.583
Lifetime:238 - 160
0.598
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Steelers
Bills
Lions
Panthers
Vikings
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:109 - 66
0.623
Lifetime:231 - 149
0.608
100_0732.JPG
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Jaguars
Bears
Eagles
Browns
Jets
Dolphins
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Packers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:114 - 60
0.655
Lifetime:258 - 121
0.681
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
CIN @ PIT - No Pick
Bills
Lions
Falcons
Jaguars
Rams
Eagles
Browns
Jets
Dolphins
Cowboys
Broncos
Cardinals
Redskins
Chargers
Packers

Week:5 - 10
0.333
Season:99 - 57
0.635
Lifetime:189 - 116
0.620
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Vikings
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Titans
Dolphins
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:110 - 64
0.632
Lifetime:211 - 114
0.649
Davis Anthony 2007.JPG
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Vikings
Bears
Eagles
Browns
Jets
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Chargers
Packers

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:70 - 46
0.603
Lifetime:144 - 95
0.603
question_mark.gif
Steelers
Chiefs
Buccaneers
Panthers
Jaguars
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Jets
Dolphins
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:117 - 58
0.669
Lifetime:205 - 93
0.688
IMG_0311_edited.JPG
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Vikings
Bears
Eagles
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Cardinals
Redskins
Colts
GB @ NO - No Pick

Week:10 - 5
0.667
Season:94 - 51
0.648
Lifetime:94 - 51
0.648
picture07.bmp
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Falcons
Jaguars
Bears
PHI @ BAL - No Pick
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:11 - 4
0.733
Season:105 - 53
0.665
Lifetime:105 - 53
0.665
blonde_gleam.gif
Steelers
Bills
Buccaneers
Panthers
Jaguars
Bears
Ravens
Browns
Titans
Patriots
Cowboys
Broncos
Giants
Redskins
Colts
Saints

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:85 - 43
0.664
Lifetime:85 - 43
0.664
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Bengals 10 @ Steelers 27

matt.jpg
Matt
Hey look, it's the Steelers again. The Bengals suck and O-Cin is riding the pine for this one (not that he has done much this year anyway). Even if I could get this game on TV, I probably wouldn't watch it. Pittsburgh 28 - Cincinnati 10.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Is it just me, or are officials messing up a lot this year? It seems like there are a lot of 3-4 minute conferences where a call, in a no pressure situation, ends up being blown. Did the endless subtle rule changes the NFL makes annually finally reach critical mass? The NFL really has no recourse if the refs on the field don't know the rules?
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Roethlisberger has sucked this year. Turribly
jon.jpg
Jon
To keep things going, this one should end in a tie that really isn't a tie.

Vikings 30 @ Jaguars 12

matt.jpg
Matt
Only four and a half months until Opening Day for the Twins.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Ok Vikings. That was a redonkulous non-call when Adrian Peterson got pulled down by one arm on a key fourth and one. However, it's hard to complain about a lone call in a game in which your team did diddily-poo in the second half, and had two potential game winning drives before fumbling that away, both times. The epically bad play calling certainly isn't helping anything either.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Meh is now a new word in the dictionary. So... meh.
jon.jpg
Jon
Minnesota looked ridiculously bad last week. I don't think Jacksonville is much of anything, but I'm not convinced the Vikings have a great chance against anyone.

Colts 23 @ Chargers 20

matt.jpg
Matt
I still like the Colts. Indy 24 - SD 17.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Get it together Rivers, don't make the team make a move to Joe Flacco.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Two good teams, now lost. What the F happened?
jon.jpg
Jon
San Diego has lost a few close ones and Indianapolis has won a couple close ones. Still, the Chargers just don't seem to have the winning formula or something. Maybe those games were all flukes but after a while it's just the way the team is.

Packers 29 @ Saints 51

matt.jpg
Matt
The Packers suck. Saints 33 - Packers 24.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Teams should stop measuring injuries to key players in terms of what a doctor thinks and instead just look to see how many weeks out they play the Packers, because the guy will be hurt at least that long.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
The Saints have a good passing game, but the Packers have some p'retty good cornerbacks. Game on! Oh and yea that's right, I'm picking the Jets over the Titans. They gotta lose some time.
jon.jpg
Jon
New Orleans plays well at home, but they're just not that great either. So I think Green Bay can win this one.
question_mark.gifjay6666
11/20/2008 @ 08:38:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Upset this week Cheifs Over Bills 27 - 20
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/20/2008 @ 11:52:40 AM
 Quote this comment
The Chefs? Great Googly Moogly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/20/2008 @ 06:53:00 PM
 Quote this comment
With the Packers playing against the Saints and their high powered passing game, I am reminded of the movie "Miracle". Herb Brooks asks his team (rhetorically), how do you defend against the Russians. "You don't defend, you attack." It seems that all too often, going back several years, the Packers have come into a game like this where they are facing a team with some significant offensive threats and they change their entire game plan to sort of "cover" the teams strengths. (The most glaring time I can think of was way back in 2002 of 2003 when the Packers lost to the Rams in the playoffs. In that game, the Packers attempted to beat the Rams by going with 6 or 7 DBs almost the entire game, something that they hadn't attempted all year, and they got eaten alive (add Favre's 6 INTs and it was just not a pleasant game for Packer fans)). The Packers cannot just defend against the Saints, they need to attack the Saints' offense. The Packers have 6 touchdowns off of interceptions this season and 16 total interceptions for the season. While I can't say I would bet money on the Packers winning this game, I feel like this game as just as much a test for the Saints offense as it is for the Packers defense.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
11/20/2008 @ 07:45:07 PM
 Quote this comment
upset special: Gaints lose to the cardinals....... 30-21
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/21/2008 @ 07:43:02 AM
 Quote this comment
"Matt
Hey look, it's the Steelers again. The Bengals suck and O-Cin is riding the pine for this one (not that he has done much this year anyway). Even if I could get this game on TV, I probably wouldn't watch it. Pittsburgh 28 - Cincinnati 10."

Wow, Good call Matt!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this at 11/21/2008 7:43:16 am
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
11/21/2008 @ 02:54:46 PM
 Quote this comment
ESPN Expert Picks. And I thought I was being homerish picking the Packers this week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
11/21/2008 @ 04:58:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Why wouldn't you pick the Pack? The Saints aren't all that great. This game is way over-hyped as possibly being competetive. Packers walk easily in this one 27-13.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
11/21/2008 @ 05:14:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Yes, the Packers have really been playing some amazing football this year. The Saints can't possibly compete with the Packers. Sure, they have the same record, and the NFC South is one of the best, if not the best, division in football, and this is a league where were the winless Lions to beat the undefeated Titans on Thanksgiving everyone would shrug and say "What a crazy year," but I agree, it's out of the realm of possibility that the 5-5 Saints even compete with the 5-5 Packers. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
11/21/2008 @ 06:21:16 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 05:58:54 PM
Why wouldn't you pick the Pack? The Saints aren't all that great. This game is way over-hyped as possibly being competetive. Packers walk easily in this one 27-13.


Just for the record, this was not my view towards this game. I was shocked to see that so many ESPN guys picked the Packers to win on the road.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
11/21/2008 @ 06:45:21 PM
 Quote this comment
If you read Bill Simmons latest column, he'll tell you how overrated home field advantage is nowadays. I was surprised to see that that many of the "experts" picked the Packers, but with the Saints injuries at RB and the Packers pass defense and seemingly surging 2nd half of the season running game, I'll definitely be disappointed if the Packers don't win.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
11/21/2008 @ 07:07:16 PM
 Quote this comment
He said it was overrated for teams that had new stadiums within the last 10 years because they were made to be fancy and not really conducive for cheering.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - The girls all know he's "way cool" Jr.
11/21/2008 @ 07:25:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:14:14 PM
Yes, the Packers have really been playing some amazing football this year. The Saints can't possibly compete with the Packers. Sure, they have the same record, and the NFC South is one of the best, if not the best, division in football, and this is a league where were the winless Lions to beat the undefeated Titans on Thanksgiving everyone would shrug and say "What a crazy year," but I agree, it's out of the realm of possibility that the 5-5 Saints even compete with the 5-5 Packers. emoticon


Typical Vikings fan comment, enhanced by a Jets fan. Five legs to the guy with the Packer logo, now that makes sense.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - How do you use these things?
11/21/2008 @ 07:43:26 PM
 Quote this comment
What did I say?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - The girls all know he's "way cool" Jr.
11/21/2008 @ 08:09:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne perfected this at 11/21/2008 8:10:13 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/21/2008 @ 08:21:04 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't think I said that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/21/2008 @ 09:12:38 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 08:25:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:14:14 PM
Yes, the Packers have really been playing some amazing football this year. The Saints can't possibly compete with the Packers. Sure, they have the same record, and the NFC South is one of the best, if not the best, division in football, and this is a league where were the winless Lions to beat the undefeated Titans on Thanksgiving everyone would shrug and say "What a crazy year," but I agree, it's out of the realm of possibility that the 5-5 Saints even compete with the 5-5 Packers. emoticon
Typical Vikings fan comment, enhanced by a Jets fan. Five legs to the guy with the Packer logo, now that makes sense.


This comment was apparently 0 rated 2600 times. Is NutCan being spammed?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2847 Posts
11/22/2008 @ 12:05:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:54:46 PM
ESPN Expert Picks. And I thought I was being homerish picking the Packers this week.


Just for the record, I was actually surprised that people didn't overwhelmingly pick the packers on here. And not just because we have a lot of packer fans. I actually think it's the better pick. I don't think the saints are that great. Then again, my picks have been pretty bad all year. I guess I didn't realize the Packers have the same record, probably because all season everyone on espn has been treating the packers like they have a couple more wins than they actually do. Then again, I still give the advantage to the Packers.

On the other hand (and I don't mean this to be too jerky), I find it a bit funny that PackOne continually makes confident statements about the Packers like this:

PackOne Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:58:54 PM
Why wouldn't you pick the Pack? The Saints aren't all that great. This game is way over-hyped as possibly being competetive. Packers walk easily in this one 27-13.


while sporting a just-over-.500 record in the picks department. Not that that means everything, but, it's a thought.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 11/22/2008 12:06:09 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Take your shirt off, twist it 'round yo' hand...spin it like a helicopter.
11/23/2008 @ 09:25:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Actually judging my picks is hardly an indicator of anything. I always pick the Pack no matter what, and I have been picking upsets in an effort to hopefully catch up this season after a poor start. Thanks for the 2606 zero legs. We will see who is laughing tomorrow night.

Go Jags!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/23/2008 @ 09:28:53 AM
 Quote this comment
If I may interpret, he just was saying that the Packers may not be the far superior team in the match-up if you look at everything. It's not like they're the 2007 Patriots going against the 2008 Lions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Sarah perfected this at 11/23/2008 9:30:53 am
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - There's music to play. Places to go. People to see.
11/23/2008 @ 09:33:32 AM
 Quote this comment
Actually, I am saying they are the far superior team. They are facing one of the most porous defenses in the entire NFL ranking in the bottom eighth in every category. The Saints activated Mike Bell yesterday, inferring that they are preparing for a Bushless or semi-Bushless game. Shockey is not 100% and was perhaps there best mis-match of the contest. Add to the fire one of the top pass stopping units in the league and this game should be less than competetive.

Also, if the Pack goes up a couple of scores early, expect the Saints to lose their fire. This is a must win for them or their season is essentially over. Go down early and the wind will quickly go out of their sails.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
PackOne perfected this 2 times, last at 11/23/2008 9:39:11 am
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
11/23/2008 @ 09:50:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Yea I see that. Just because you write it doesn't mean it's true. I think the Pack will win, but that doesn't make them the way awesome-er team. Look at the records at the very least.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - Well use me, use me, 'caus you ain't that average groupie.
11/23/2008 @ 09:55:06 AM
 Quote this comment
I look at more the strength of schedule and the injury report. I also look at combined points in losses which is 57 for the Saints and 22 for the Pack. This is why I have to stay away from the can during football. I don't want to get blackballed from what we all can agree is a superior team in all facets - Nutcan.com softball.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne perfected this at 11/23/2008 9:57:20 am
newalex.jpgAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
11/23/2008 @ 01:14:02 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 09:25:48 AM
...and I have been picking upsets in an effort to hopefully catch up this season after a poor start.


Maybe you should try picking the teams that are going to win. There's no bonus points for picking upsets.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/23/2008 @ 03:42:35 PM
 Quote this comment
I like how the Packers are the only team to ever play a team who has injured players.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto - 209 Posts
11/23/2008 @ 04:47:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Any of the other Vikings fans on this board sick of Gus Frerotte? He is really taking the fun out of watching Vikings games this year. I know they won big today, but I think I have seen enough of Gus. Not that T-Jack would be doing any better but I feel that on a lot of plays in the past two games Jackson might have been able to make plays with his feet that Gus clearly cannot.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - Tater Salad?
11/23/2008 @ 07:57:36 PM
 Quote this comment
What the hell happened to the Broncos?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
11/23/2008 @ 09:46:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 07:57:36 PM
What the hell happened to the Broncos?


No matter how much the Raiders stink they always play the Broncos tough. Rivalry game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
11/23/2008 @ 10:46:20 PM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 04:47:51 PM
Any of the other Vikings fans on this board sick of Gus Frerotte? He is really taking the fun out of watching Vikings games this year. I know they won big today, but I think I have seen enough of Gus. Not that T-Jack would be doing any better but I feel that on a lot of plays in the past two games Jackson might have been able to make plays with his feet that Gus clearly cannot.


Yeah, I've been in that boat for a few weeks now. I was ok with the move at first because Gus' veteran savvy was going to protect the ball and not make dumb mistakes and even though they are pretty even that small edge would be just enough to push us over the hump.

However, Gus has thrown INT's the last couple weeks that rookies would be criticized for. He also took a sack today that knocked the team back from the 2 yard line to the 10, despite ample time to ditch the ball. I don't expect a perfect game out of Gus, but he's really not doing all that much less mistake-wise than T-Jack was doing.

More and more I'm starting to feel like we should just put T-Jack back out there. Sure Gus might be marginally better, but this is also "Peak Gus." T-Jack has tons of upside and would make teams have to worry about his running.

Especially this week, when Gus was injured every other play. T-Jack certainly has to be an improvement on Gus at 75%.

Gus or T-Jack, the play calling is the problem. If I see that god damn naked bootleg with one receiver dragging with the QB as the lone option, with 9 of the 11 sniffing out the play and covering said one player, one more time, we're going to need a new TV. T-Jack wasn't throwing 4 interceptions a game, the "kick ass offense" was just sputtering, and he got thrown under the bus.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 11/23/2008 10:52:30 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/24/2008 @ 08:24:54 AM
 Quote this comment
Man, I took a dive in the overall standings this week. I lost my lead and everything. If the Packers win I'll be back in a tie for first.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/24/2008 @ 09:35:53 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:46:07 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:57:36 PM
What the hell happened to the Broncos?
No matter how much the Raiders stink they always play the Broncos tough. Rivalry game.


I played Eddie "coulda played Vince Jackson" Royal and Jay "Shoulda played Gerard" Cutler for 1 and 7 points respectively (on different FF teams).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
11/24/2008 @ 08:37:05 PM
 Quote this comment
So how do those words taste? I would imagine something like a saltine.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/25/2008 @ 07:38:20 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, that game sucked.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
11/25/2008 @ 08:58:31 AM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - 11/21/2008 @ 04:58:54 PM
This game is way over-hyped as possibly being competetive.


Well, I guess you were right on one count. emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 11/25/2008 10:11:43 am
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
11/25/2008 @ 09:59:27 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 11/22/2008 @ 01:05:27 PM
Just for the record, I was actually surprised that people didn't overwhelmingly pick the packers on here. And not just because we have a lot of packer fans. I actually think it's the better pick.


The real question is, "What was Jon thinking?"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
11/25/2008 @ 12:26:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:59:27 AM
Jon Wrote - 11/22/2008 @ 12:05:27 PM
Just for the record, I was actually surprised that people didn't overwhelmingly pick the packers on here. And not just because we have a lot of packer fans. I actually think it's the better pick.
The real question is, "What was Jon thinking?"


No, the real question is, "What the hell happened?"

Now, I know what ACTUALLY happened, but why? And where was our D?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
11/25/2008 @ 01:04:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Offensively for the Packers: Rodgers was not consistent. He made a few great passes, and he totally missed on a couple others. That's just not good enough in a shootout. I'm pretty sure there were a couple points where Driver and Jennings were thinking, "Last year that play was a TD". Also, I thought Grant tried to stretch the run to the outside a little too often, instead of making the cut back move that is basically his bread and butter.

Defensively: Besides Kampman, the Packers have absolutely no pass rush. I've noticed this all season but somehow it hasn't been much of an issue. Last night it was a problem, in 2 ways. Firstly, it's just not good to give Brees too much time in the pocket. Secondly, like I've been saying for a long time, the Packers stink at blitzing, but their game plan included quite a bit of blitzing. First play, Woodson (great coverage guy, not much for blitzing) comes on the corner blitz and Bigby (who probably shouldn't have been in the game judging by his gimpiness) gets smoked for a 70 yd TD. That set the tone. When the Packers blitzed, they hardly got any pressure so it was 1 on 1 all over the field and the linebackers and safeties repeatedly lost those battles. Even on the one play where Woodson got burned by Colston, it looked like Rouse was supposed to be helping deep.

In summary, Rodgers wasn't perfect, Brees was, and the Packers pass D was overrated because they lack a consistent pass rush, both from the D line and their blitz packages, and cause a couple of games teams didn't have to pass cause they could just run the ball at will. Also, Rodgers first interception was a game changer. If the Packers go down and score on that drive instead, the end result could've been much different.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
11/25/2008 @ 01:50:20 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah. The Packers D is the Anti-Vikings D and both get a little too much credit for being so good at one aspect of defense when part of the story is that teams don't even try to run on the Vikings, or pass on the Packers, as much, because the opposite approach works so well.

Which isn't to say the Packers aren't (normally) good at pass D and the Vikings aren't a dominating run defense, but there's a little bit of a "chicken or the egg" syndrome happening too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 11/25/2008 1:55:18 pm
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
11/25/2008 @ 03:29:24 PM
 Quote this comment
.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.