NFL 2008 Season Week 3 Picks

	Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 09/15/2008 @ 11:17:27 PM
I cant belive im picking the chargers over the jets.... just im not impressed with the jets against the patriots so Im sticking chargers....Packers are going to own the cowboys.... and i might change my pick with texans and titans... thats a toughy...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 09/16/2008 @ 07:47:28 AM
Lions/Niners- sounds like nap time. No, that is not an Imus joke.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!! 09/16/2008 @ 11:46:18 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:47:28 AM Lions/Niners- sounds like nap time. No, that is not an Imus joke. :*(		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 06:04:55 PM
Here's what people are saying about Rodgers. Being a backup for 3 seasons seems to have been a big reason why this "rookie" QB is not playing like a rookie. With all the talk of these "tests" for Rodgers, we can all agree that this game against the Cowboys is absolutely going to be a test, not just of Rodgers, but for the Packers offense. The first two games were against pretty suspect defenses. The Cowboys are a powerhouse. This is going to be a pretty good indication of what we can expect from Rodgers and the Packers for the rest of the season. My favorite quote from the link I posted: To summarize: Wrong alignment. Unintended receiver. Touchdown. Some might call it lucky, but it stemmed from a cool and well-schooled quarterback making a snap decision you wouldn't expect from a first-year starter. He was talking about the touchdown pass to James Jones, where Brandon Jackson lined up in the wrong side of the formation, Donald Lee was in the wrong spot and coming in motion, Greg Jennings was the intended receiver in the corner of the end zone, and Jones basically just got in the way and caught the ball.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 06:26:06 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:04:55 PM With all the talk of these "tests" for Rodgers, we can all agree that this game against the Cowboys is absolutely going to be a test, not just of Rodgers, but for the Packers offense. The first two games were against pretty suspect defenses. The Cowboys are a powerhouse. This is going to be a pretty good indication of what we can expect from Rodgers and the Packers for the rest of the season. Did you watch the game last night?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/16/2008 @ 06:41:40 PM
yeah, the Cowboys scored 41 points.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:00:37 PM
and allowed 37.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/16/2008 @ 07:02:51 PM
Yeah, but to the Eagles. They are no slouches offensively.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/16/2008 @ 07:03:57 PM
We shouldn't be either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/16/2008 @ 07:05:20 PM
Ok fine, you've both convinced me. The Packers are going to dominate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/16/2008 @ 07:18:04 PM
Who else sent video of themselves playing WR in flag football to the Seahawks today?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 12:43:04 PM
Gus Frerotte has been named the starter for the Vikings Sunday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 12:45:32 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:18:04 PM Who else sent video of themselves playing WR in flag football to the Seahawks today? Jeremy was a pretty badass WR when we played. Of course, there was always the Carl Special, but I was a never- used RB type of fella.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/17/2008 @ 01:00:19 PM
Yeah, unfortunately "lower your shoulder and run straight ahead like a maniac" doesn't fly in flag football leagues.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 03:09:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:00:19 PM Yeah, unfortunately "lower your shoulder and run straight ahead like a maniac" doesn't fly in flag football leagues. You forgot to mention screaming like a lunatic. That was essential, as the Defense stopped for a full 2 seconds thinking "What the hell?"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/17/2008 @ 05:38:24 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=nflrankings/1-10/080917&sportCat=nfl		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - Check yourself before you wriggity wreck yourself. 09/17/2008 @ 10:43:31 PM
Wow, at first I just skipped the top, and thought that dude was on crack. Then I realized that it's all-time. I also know that you are smart enough to know that this would happen if you just posted a blatant link with NFL rankings in it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/17/2008 @ 11:14:23 PM
Say what now?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 08:42:35 AM
No titles ever and the Vikings are 7th?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else." 09/18/2008 @ 09:35:22 AM
I am befuddled as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 09:47:24 AM
What's to befuddle? The Vikings were a consistently good team for years. Besides that, it's not even an "opinion" based ranking system. The Vikings won the NFL/NFC Central 16 times, nearly half the time, and made the playoffs 7 times as a wildcard. The Packers won it 6 times in 34 years (3 thanks to Favre, 1 in the strike shortened year).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 09/18/2008 10:09:35 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 10:20:45 AM
I understand that, but what I don't get is how a team can be ranked so "high" and not have anything to show for it. Look at the Packers- not in the top ten, but winners of 3 out of what, 4 superbowls? Befuddling.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/18/2008 @ 10:27:00 AM
Packers are 1-1. I guess it depends what you mean by "nothing to show for it," they have "not sucking" to show for rarely sucking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 09/18/2008 @ 10:31:57 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:20:45 AM Look at the Packers- not in the top ten, but winners of 3 out of what, 4 superbowls? Befuddling. The rankings are only since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 10:34:32 AM
Yeah, I call that a hose job.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 09/18/2008 @ 10:35:10 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:27:00 AM Packers are 1-1. I guess it depends what you mean by "nothing to show for it," they have "not sucking" to show for rarely sucking. If you call (pardon my sailor-speak) playoff blueballs something to show, then yes, they do.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec edited this at 09/18/2008 10:35:31 am

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 09/18/2008 @ 10:36:57 AM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 10:31:57 AM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:20:45 AM Look at the Packers- not in the top ten, but winners of 3 out of what, 4 superbowls? Befuddling. The rankings are only since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:34:32 AM Yeah, I call that a hose job. I know the time restraint hurts, the Packers look a little more ordinary when you factor out their 1814 "championship" victories over the "Appleton Scallywags"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 09/18/2008 10:40:00 am

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 09/18/2008 @ 10:39:04 AM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 10:35:10 AM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:27:00 AM Packers are 1-1. I guess it depends what you mean by "nothing to show for it," they have "not sucking" to show for rarely sucking. If you call (pardon my sailor-speak) playoff blueballs something to show, then yes, they do. Well the problem is, much of the time early on at least, they had to face those teams in the top 6 in their prime.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 09/18/2008 10:42:16 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/18/2008 @ 12:33:08 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:27:00 AM Packers are 1-1. I guess it depends what you mean by "nothing to show for it," they have "not sucking" to show for rarely sucking. Another attempt to re-write history by claiming that the first two SuperBowls didn't count. edit: since the merger, I see.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/18/2008 12:48:55 pm

	Carlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle! 09/18/2008 @ 12:43:07 PM
Jeremy, the Appleton Scallywags were a force to be reckoned with. How dare you question them!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 01:04:58 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:33:08 PM Another attempt to re-write history by claiming that the first two SuperBowls didn't count. As opposed to rewriting history to make them count? Check. Mate.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 01:27:41 PM
I want to be able to choose my starting year. I wasn't born until 81, so I really don't care about the years before that, and I think the first Super Bowl I remember was 89, so I want to see what the rankings look like starting with the 89 season, because from there forward are the only years I really care about. The Packers would definitely be higher on that list, although I couldn't believe they didn't have any of the 25 most crushing playoff loses before and I insist that some get added if we start from 89. TO TD, 4th and 26, Eli freaking Manning stars in 3rd Tynes the Charm, Favre throws 6 TDs (to the Rams!)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tag This 09/18/2008 @ 02:40:41 PM
was it 1998 or 1999 when the Falcons kicked the Vikes in the head?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 02:41:23 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:04:58 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:33:08 PM Another attempt to re-write history by claiming that the first two SuperBowls didn't count. As opposed to rewriting history to make them count? Check. Mate. You can't call checkmate on your own nonsense, that's like trying to give yourself cool points.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 02:53:07 PM
You're right, complaining about revisionist history taking away something that was given to you via revisionist history makes perfect sense. I'll take my nonsense elsewhere.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 03:08:12 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 02:40:41 PM was it 1998 or 1999 when the Falcons kicked the Vikes in the head? 1998 season, game took place in 1999. It was the season the Packers lost in the playoffs on the "OWENS! OWENS! OWENS! HE CAUGHT IT! HE CAUGHT IT! HE CAUGHT IT!" play, following Rice's non-fumble fumble. (Which I assume is the "TO TD" Alex mentioned)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/18/2008 3:08:47 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2008 @ 06:26:39 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:04:58 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:08 PM Another attempt to re-write history by claiming that the first two SuperBowls didn't count. As opposed to rewriting history to make them count? Check. Mate. What? You don't have to rewrite history to make them count. That's the way it was originally written.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 09/19/2008 @ 10:57:51 AM
Was it? The facts beg to differ. http://www.newspaperarchive.com/TopicsFullArticles.aspx?c=sportssuperbowl		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/19/2008 @ 11:41:25 AM
Just because the name "Super Bowl" wasn't adopted at the time doesn't mean it was something different.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 09/21/2008 @ 08:45:47 AM
Anyone pick up Tyler Thigpen yet, the Vikings actually drafted him last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/21/2008 @ 02:22:59 PM
I have Ronnie Brown on my bench on my other team		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/21/2008 @ 02:53:26 PM
Has anyone noticed that the Fox Robot is doing the "electric slide?"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 09/21/2008 @ 04:48:59 PM
Pats lost, that's great!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/21/2008 @ 06:18:17 PM
I finished 9-5 during the day games. At one point though, based on the scores at the time, I was 1-11. Good recovery, teams I picked this week.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/21/2008 @ 11:19:06 PM
Packers line play on both sides of the ball doomed them. Rodgers was so-so and winged a few wild ones, but it's not like Romo really outplayed him either, Romo just didn't get sacked as much and the Cowboys ran the ball better. Grant has looked bad this year, and I don't want to hear about how teams are gearing up to stop the run cause Favre isn't in there, he just seems to be a step slower than he was last year, maybe he's still not 100% healthy (fingers crossed).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	romo9rulz - 4 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 12:10:52 AM
That's just how good the cowboys are...they can make some mistakes and still win...the first two weeks rogers played against the worst two passing defenses in the league last year. Now he had to play a real team and lost. Thats how far behind they are. No discredit to the packers though, rogers is just gonna get better but he still has a lot to learn. We have a good running game with marion and jones in the backfield...i don't think anybody can stop us this year. We have the best qb, kicker, punter, recievers, tight end, defensive end...should i keep going...but i surely don't care what the cowboys do in the season...its all about the playoffs!!!!!!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 02:18:26 AM
romo9rulz Wrote - Today @ 01:10:52 AM We have the best qb, kicker, punter, recievers, tight end, defensive end...should i keep going... Please do....		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 07:55:07 AM
The question of whether the Packers were to be considered one of the NFL elite teams was just answered. They didn't look that horrible, necessarily, and the Cowboys didn't exactly look that outstanding. But the Cowboys not playing their best beat the Packers handily.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 08:01:25 AM
romo9rulz Wrote - Today @ 12:10:52 AM ..but i surely don't care what the cowboys do in the season...its all about the playoffs!!!!!!!! Well then, the Packers have nothing to worry about, since the Cowboys can't win a playoff game no matter what the situation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 09:09:57 AM
playoffs? don't talk about playoffs... it's week 3.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Carlos44ec perfected this at 09/22/2008 9:10:17 am

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 09:54:25 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:55:07 AM The question of whether the Packers were to be considered one of the NFL elite teams was just answered. They didn't look that horrible, necessarily, and the Cowboys didn't exactly look that outstanding. But the Cowboys not playing their best beat the Packers handily. They put up 9 points, at home, and were losing by 18 before Dallas went into "Let them score, just make them take time" mode. In the same time span the Packers put up 9 points the Eagles put up 30, on the road. Rodgers was indecisive and fairly inaccurate, probably stemming from being under pressure all night, and getting sacked 5 times. Indeed, Dallas didn't look like they were setting the world on fire, but the Packers did look pretty bad.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 12:43:29 PM
I don't know, I never had the feeling that "man, these guys are playing horrible." It just seemed more like the Cowboys were just that much better. The Packers' defense actually put a fair amount of pressure on Romo from time to time, but clearly it wasn't consistent and their run defense was a joke. It's hard to read too much into anything in this game, because it might just be that Rodgers needs more experience and the Cowboys are just that good. Heck, maybe the Packers are that bad. Rodgers seemed to have open receivers only about 3 times, 2 of which resulted in long completions. The Cowboys just played better. Disappointing, no doubt, but I don't think it's something to get too worried about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 09/22/2008 12:48:53 pm

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/22/2008 @ 01:25:01 PM
As far as the Eagles comparison, Westbrook is practically a one-man offense and Grant/Jackson isn't nearly the same threat out of the backfield, so when the Cowboys knew that the Packers had to pass the Packers couldn't give Rodgers much time because the Cowboys didn't respect the run or catch from the RB position. What I take from that is the Packers will not be making too many comebacks if they get down multiple scores this year, which is why settling for 3 field goals pretty much ended the game right there, unless Romo gave them some more free points.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/22/2008 @ 03:23:36 PM
What we found out is probably simply that the Packers just aren't that good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - Well you can get this lapdance here for free. 09/22/2008 @ 03:32:23 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:23:36 PM What we found out is probably simply that the Packers just aren't that good. That's not true, all we found out is that the Cowboys are right now. Injuries didn't help the cause. We got out coached a bit though.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 04:21:17 PM
Al Harris out for year most likely. Nothing to follow. www.packerslounge.com		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 05:06:44 PM
Ruptured spleen? Yikes. As for the game, it was pretty gosh darn shoddy. Our offense couldn't string anything together and were barely on the field and our defense forgot entirely about Jason Witten. Our defense is now officially banged up more than it might possibly be able to survive. With Harris out, I think that's going to change the way we play. Plus, Woodson has a broken toe, Collins could be out for a bit, and Bigby didn't even play yesterday. Let's see how tonight goes before I entirely blame Rodgers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/22/2008 @ 05:54:30 PM
I knew CB was going to be a problem. Despite the broken toe Woodson has been the man (TO = shut down, as opposed to when he torched Harris last year) which means whoever is on the other side is going to get bombarded repeatedly until they prove to other teams that they can play. And getting pwned by Miles Austin is not going to help. As far as Witten having a big game, missing Bigby certainly didn't help that situation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	romo9rulz 09/22/2008 @ 07:11:01 PM
Yea u know the cowboys figured out rogers after a couple quarters. all the packers were doing was throwing those rinky-dinky 5 yard passes and they couldn't go deep at all. our recievers didn't do all that great. they stopped TO because they double teamed him every play and crayton did nothing at all. witten and austin were the only ones cayching anything. then we have marion who is a monster and F. Jones who is super fast which killed the packers. of course romo didn't have a good game but he didn't have too. I wasn't shocked the packers didn't do much but the cowboys should have whipped them by like 30.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 09/22/2008 @ 08:20:38 PM
But why?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle! 09/22/2008 @ 09:07:05 PM
Is Brett just being Brett, or am I missing something?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 09/22/2008 @ 10:24:44 PM
Worst play calling ever. 2 pt conversion try, get it on the 1 inch line and then no runningbacks and Favre's in the shotgun position?!?! Soooo shocked that didn't work out.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 09/23/2008 @ 12:19:54 AM
romo9rulz Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:11:01 PM Yea u know the cowboys figured out rogers after a couple quarters. all the packers were doing was throwing those rinky-dinky 5 yard passes and they couldn't go deep at all. our recievers didn't do all that great. they stopped TO because they double teamed him every play and crayton did nothing at all. witten and austin were the only ones cayching anything. then we have marion who is a monster and F. Jones who is super fast which killed the packers. of course romo didn't have a good game but he didn't have too. I wasn't shocked the packers didn't do much but the cowboys should have whipped them by like 30. back on this packer cowboy game, it looked simple to me really..... grant/ jackson got shut out by the cowboy D, pressure was all on rodgers to make the plays = 3 field goals in 3 quarters... I dont think it was all on rodgers.... the cowboys Defense is pretty good, but i just wish we could have found a way to run the ball if we would have, less pressure on rodgers = big plays.... the the packers D had all those injuries so i mean thats perfectly explainable..... but if u wanna say rodgers sucked u might as well say romo sucked as well.... the only difference i saw in both the QB's was basically their choices as far as recievers go, and their opposing defenses. Romo made the TD pass because we didnt have harris to take austin, and they had a running game to take pressure off romo..... as far as circumstances are considerned rodgers had the better game.... but w/e		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 09/23/2008 @ 07:34:42 AM
What has happened to our English as a Second Language Program?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 09/23/2008 @ 09:29:36 PM
Here's my question for anyone watching the Monday night game. Specifically the second half. Did the guys in the booth ever notice/mention that Favre was limping out there? I watched a lot of the second half, when he got hurt and was limping, but I never heard them mention it, and when Favre was sitting out at the end they said, well they didn't want him to get hurt, but they never mentioned that he already was a bit. I can't say I watched every second of the game, that's why I'm asking if anyone did hear it, but from the way they were talking, it sounded like that whole thing completely got missed by them. If so, it was classic modern sportscasting, where they have tons of information and stories and banter, but miss something blatently obvious. I mean, maybe they don't watch favre as closely as we do, but it was obvious after multiple plays.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this 2 times, last at 09/23/2008 9:30:03 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 09/23/2008 @ 09:41:02 PM
I didn't notice it until the end of the game, but to be fair, I was trying not to watch the game because it was making me hate football.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/23/2008 @ 10:48:54 PM
They did mention it at the end. (I mean literally the end, as Favre limped off the field.) It seems impossible for them to miss something like this, yet it happens all the time. It's not like it has to be noticed by the guys in the booth to get noticed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.