NFL 2009 Season Week 14 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
Steelers 6 @ Browns 13
Final
Thu, 12/10/09 7:20pm
19 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Panthers 10 @ Patriots 20
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Bengals 10 @ Vikings 30
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
5 Picks - 22% 18 Picks - 78%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Bengals
Bengals
Seahawks 7 @ Texans 34
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
2 Picks - 9% 21 Picks - 91%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Lions 3 @ Ravens 48
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Dolphins 14 @ Jaguars 10
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
8 Picks - 35% 15 Picks - 65%
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jets 26 @ Buccaneers 3
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 96% 1 Pick - 4%
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Bills 16 @ Chiefs 10
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
14 Picks - 61% 9 Picks - 39%
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Chiefs
Chiefs
Bills
Bills
Broncos 16 @ Colts 28
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
2 Picks - 9% 21 Picks - 91%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Rams 7 @ Titans 47
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Packers 21 @ Bears 14
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 96% 1 Pick - 4%
Packers
Packers
Bears
Bears
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Saints 26 @ Falcons 23
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 12:00pm
22 Picks - 96% 1 Pick - 4%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Redskins 34 @ Raiders 13
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 3:05pm
11 Picks - 48% 12 Picks - 52%
Raiders
Raiders
Redskins
Redskins
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Chargers 20 @ Cowboys 17
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 3:15pm
17 Picks - 74% 6 Picks - 26%
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Eagles 45 @ Giants 38
Final
Sun, 12/13/09 7:20pm
12 Picks - 52% 11 Picks - 48%
Eagles
Eagles
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Eagles
Eagles
Cardinals 9 @ 49ers 24
Final
Mon, 12/14/09 7:30pm
20 Picks - 87% 3 Picks - 13%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Week Record11 - 5
0.688
10 - 6
0.625
Worst Place
10 - 6
0.625
Worst Place
11 - 5
0.688
Season Record135 - 73
0.649
135 - 73
0.649
135 - 73
0.649
144 - 64
0.692
Scotttime Record637 - 371
0.632
617 - 391
0.612
630 - 378
0.625
641 - 367
0.636
No-Pack-Vike Record2516 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1545
0.613
2530 - 1462
0.634
2492 - 1500
0.624
Lifetime Record1314 - 761
0.633
1228 - 847
0.592
1300 - 775
0.626
1300 - 775
0.626
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:145 - 63
0.697
Lifetime:650 - 358
0.645
newalex.jpg
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
Patriots
Bengals
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Giants
Cardinals

Week:9 - 6
0.600
Season:135 - 72
0.652
Lifetime:622 - 384
0.618
images.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Cowboys
Giants
Cardinals

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:122 - 71
0.632
Lifetime:605 - 383
0.612
image.jpeg
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Cardinals

Week:12 - 3
0.800
Season:113 - 58
0.661
Lifetime:232 - 158
0.595
face.bmp
Steelers
Patriots
Bengals
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Cowboys
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:98 - 51
0.658
Lifetime:420 - 246
0.631
flower .jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Bengals
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:124 - 66
0.653
Lifetime:435 - 286
0.603
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Cardinals

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:137 - 71
0.659
Lifetime:423 - 254
0.625
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Bengals
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:118 - 48
0.711
Lifetime:336 - 182
0.649
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Cowboys
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:119 - 58
0.672
Lifetime:380 - 206
0.648
me.png
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Giants
49ers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:131 - 76
0.633
Lifetime:218 - 147
0.597
picture07.bmp
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Broncos
Titans
Packers
Falcons
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Cardinals

Week:10 - 5
0.667
Season:128 - 76
0.627
Lifetime:290 - 156
0.650
blonde_gleam.gif
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Cowboys
Giants
Cardinals

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:140 - 66
0.680
Lifetime:271 - 137
0.664
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:139 - 68
0.671
Lifetime:139 - 68
0.671
question_mark.gif
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Chiefs
Broncos
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:94 - 60
0.610
Lifetime:94 - 60
0.610
question_mark.gif
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:122 - 53
0.697
Lifetime:122 - 53
0.697
question_mark.gif
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Jaguars
Buccaneers
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Redskins
Chargers
Giants
Cardinals

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:84 - 48
0.636
Lifetime:84 - 48
0.636
bill2.jpg
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Eagles
Cardinals

Week:13 - 2
0.867
Season:77 - 44
0.636
Lifetime:77 - 44
0.636
Me at work.JPG
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Seahawks
Ravens
Jaguars
Jets
Chiefs
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Giants
49ers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:18 - 16
0.529
Lifetime:18 - 16
0.529
question_mark.gif
Steelers
Patriots
Vikings
Seahawks
Ravens
Dolphins
Jets
Bills
Colts
Titans
Packers
Saints
Raiders
Chargers
Eagles
49ers

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:13 - 3
0.812
Lifetime:13 - 3
0.812
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Steelers 6 @ Browns 13

sarah.jpg
Sarah
The thing is, this could end up being a good game between two bad teams
jon.jpg
Jon
Cleveland could win. They probably won't, but they could.
matt.jpg
Matt
I strenuously object.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
What's at the bottom of this pile? A huge glass of who gives a s**t.

Bengals 10 @ Vikings 30

sarah.jpg
Sarah
If I wanted to keep my lead, I would pick the Vikings, because that's what the majority of people would do. However, I am going with my intuition and going with the Bengals. My intuition or whatever is pretty good. Just ask Joe Mauer.
jon.jpg
Jon
Oh no! Minnesota is a fraud! Brett Favre and his 12 week illusion has been exposed!
In serious news though, I still feel a little sick to my stomach that E.J. Henderson is injured. I feel bad for him and for the team (and for the fans).
matt.jpg
Matt
Harvin is out for the Vikings, so that sucks.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The injuries are piling up for the purple.

Packers 21 @ Bears 14

sarah.jpg
Sarah
I had posted some witty comments from my phone, but none of them saved so I've got nothing.
jon.jpg
Jon
That first game seems like two years ago.
matt.jpg
Matt
This is the week the Bears turn it around.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Congratulations are in order for Aaron Rodgers who only needed 1.8 seasons to surpass the number of wins Brett Favre led essentially the same team to in his last year as a Packer.

Eagles 45 @ Giants 38

sarah.jpg
Sarah
What does everyone think of the big New York deal that just went down? The Tigers ended up getting 4 pitchers out of the deal for letting go of 2 of their best players. Game 163 must've played a part in that. Ha!
jon.jpg
Jon
Just when you think Philadelphia is good, they prove you wrong. And the opposite might be true for New York.
matt.jpg
Matt
I don't care.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Revenge?

Cardinals 9 @ 49ers 24

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Maybe if I remember my comment, I'll add it here later.
jon.jpg
Jon
Arizona will probably lose by 30 points. That's what they do.
matt.jpg
Matt
Arizona seems to be clicking, but who knows what 49ers team will show up.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Cardinals embarrassed the Vikings and clicked on all cylinders. Look for them to add insult to injury this week by completely melting down.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
12/10/2009 @ 08:14:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Congratulations are in order for Aaron Rodgers who only needed 1.8 seasons to surpass the number of wins Brett Favre led essentially the same team to in his last year as a Packer.
No slack for a rookie quarterback? (well, last year he was anyway).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/10/2009 @ 09:23:53 AM
 Quote this comment
It's largely not Aaron's fault, it just highlights the idiocy that is telling your HOF QB to beat it* following a 13-3 NFC Championship game season.

*You can blame Brett's waffling, and point to the fact that they would have taken him back, but it would have been begrudgingly. Ted Thompson had been hinting he wanted Brett to go for years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the annual Will I/Won't I's started then. The fact that on the flip side neither of them wanted to be the guy that would always be known as the guy who sent Brett packing is a red herring.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/10/2009 @ 11:13:00 AM
 Quote this comment
If you claim that Brett Favre isn't carrying the Vikings, then I would say it isn't that idiodic for the Packers to have moved on. The Packers need someone to carry their team, especially passing, since they basically have no running game. I don't think Favre is capable of carrying a team anymore, especially in the cold. He was hurt last year, but he did struggle down the stretch. Basically, I flat out think the Packers made the right move. It probably went against conventional wisdom, but ultimately I think the Packers are better off. I didn't realize this was still up for debate.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/10/2009 @ 05:12:12 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't say that, and that doesn't follow anyway.

The Packers were one point away from the Superbowl, then won 6 games the next year. I didn't realize there was a debate either, pretty straight forward. emoticon

Will the Packers be better off next year, or 3 years from now, because Rodgers got another season in? Possibly. But what does "better off" mean? Playoffs instead of not? 8-8 rather than 6-10 again? The team was coming off a huge year. It wasn't the time to rebuild. It's idiotic looking back on it, and 10 times more idiotic if you remove hindsight from it, since for all they knew Rodgers would be the worst QB to ever play the game. You win now, and, for the most part, worry about the future later.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
12/10/2009 @ 07:47:56 PM
 Quote this comment
He didn't have much actual game experience, but they had 3 years of training camp, preseason, and practices to evaluate him. It's not like they drafted a top 5 pick in the 08 draft and said, ok you're the starting QB.

I forgot to pick. Stupid Thursday night games. If Congress wants to diddle around in sports they should ban Thursday night games. If affects millions of peoples fantasy football players in mostly a bad way, which could lead to stress or depression, and cause health issues. So really they could just toss this in to the health care reform bill.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/10/2009 @ 10:43:26 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, but the annals of draft busts are filled with guys that looked good until the live ammo was busted out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!!
12/11/2009 @ 06:23:42 AM
 Quote this comment
Everyone is in the pooper!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/11/2009 @ 11:07:21 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm only using hindsight to justify what I've held all along, that moving on with Aaron Rodgers was a smart move. They WERE one point away from the Super Bowl. So? They weren't exactly a juggernaut that year. It's hard to think that they would have just repeated the next year, especially since their defense last year decided to just flat out fall apart. In other words, Rodgers was not really the reason they ended up bad last year.

So to review, I now and have always believed that the Packers made the correct decision, and I clearly have not been proven wrong. And from the analysis of almost any NFL analyst, the Packers are better with Rodgers right now than they would be with Favre.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/11/2009 @ 11:31:25 AM
 Quote this comment
The Brett Favre led 2008 Packers could have gone 0-16, it was still the wrong move. The outcome (which was actually much worse anyway) really has nothing to say on the matter. I know I said this back then, but it's like being dealt 20 in Blackjack and hitting. You're ignoring overwhelming odds against you, and the odds that are already in your favor. If you then get dealt an ace it doesn't make your decision any smarter. On top of that, they won 7 fewer games the following year. That's almost half a season's worth of games. Imagine the Brewers dumping Fielder or Braun, the year after the finally made the playoffs and looked like they could go places with a few more polishes, and then losing 71 more games than they did the previous year.* I don't know how much more "proven wrong" you can be. (Unless you want to pretend that Brett Favre was never in on a team that lost a lead in the 4th quarter, and that offense can't effect the defense. Or that Corey Williams was actually the lynch-pin of the 13-3 2007 version of the Packers, and not the HOF QB they replaced with a rookie.)

Also, I'm not sure how you can make the case that the Packers are "better off" with Rodgers. Favre is having an MVP type season. Rodgers certainly isn't doing poorly, but it's a stupid thing to pretend that you'd know even if Favre was mowing his lawn this year, let alone while he's had more successes than Rodgers. (Rodgers turned a 13-3 team into a 6-10 team, and Favre turned a 4 win team into a 9-7 team and had people talking Superbowl prior to getting hurt.)

Again, it was almost certainly the wrong move in hindsight, and an indefensible move without it.

*Of course this is a flawed analogy because one fluke loss in football has a much greater impact, but it's merely meant to reflect the weight of the difference, combined with the timing of the change, in which we're talking here.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 12/11/2009 11:39:39 am
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/11/2009 @ 01:14:05 PM
 Quote this comment
What does it mean if the Jets finish with the same record as last year?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
12/11/2009 @ 01:27:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Eric Mangini belongs in Cleveland?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
12/11/2009 @ 01:43:57 PM
 Quote this comment
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 06:23:42 AM
Everyone is in the pooper!


Funnily enough, we're all the Trophy. 0-1 is good enough for 1st right now. (As always you have to pick all the games to qualify.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/11/2009 @ 04:55:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:31:25 PM
Again, it was almost certainly the wrong move in hindsight, and an indefensible move without it.


It IS defended by pretty much every legitimate national NFL mind. And you want hindsight? Favre got hurt last year and that pretty much cost the Jets their season. So what if the Packers finished 6-10. They took a risk knowing that there might be some time to materialize. But hindsight shows that it absolutely was the right move. Favre fits wonderfully with the Vikings. He would not be doing this well with the Packers, for one, because the Packers have NO running game and he would have had to BE the team from week 1. Favre has played wonderfully all season, but part of that might be because he has had such a supporting cast specifically because of having a stud of a running back. Favre flat out fits with the Vikings, and ironically enough, probably will continue to benefit because they play indoors. One of the big things that seemed to mark the beginning of the end for Favre in GB was a few games in december and the playoffs (in the same season they got to the NFC Championship game) where he played just awful, and seemed to be greatly affected by the cold; this was probably just a natural result of getting old. But seriously, hindsight makes the decision look a lot better. The Packers this season are currently in a playoff spot, so there's nothing wrong with that, and they have easy schedule to close out the season. And, they have a good QB they know they can rely on for several years now, which they may have lost out on had they continued to snub him.

Here's a more accurate statement:
Again, it was almost certainly the wrong is proving to be a good move in hindsight, and an indefensible a risky, if not difficult move with the teams future in mind without it.

*oh, and the 0-nut is not from me.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 12/11/2009 4:58:14 pm
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4089 Posts
12/11/2009 @ 05:05:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Is there a kicking myself emoticon for not going with the Browns? Drats, darn, and so forth!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
12/11/2009 @ 05:28:20 PM
 Quote this comment
It certainly wasn't defended much at the time. The closest it ever came to being defended was mentioning that when the chips were finally down it was potentially too late in the offseason, but that's not really an evaluation of the decision, and ignoring the lead up.

Besides, we're also not talking about the 2009 Packers. The closest this year comes to being relevant is a) showing that last year's decision can't be justified in any "Brett's got nothing left" sense. Your point about the cold might make some sense, were it not the case that Aaron won his first cold game ever 4 days ago and b) that the Packers have a better chance of winning a Superbowl this year with Rodgers having one more year under his belt, then if they just went to him this year, and played for the Superbowl last year. The 2009 Packers might be better off with Rodgers, but that isn't the discussion. This year would have to be reevaluated as it's own distinct circumstances. No one ever said the decision had to be get rid of Favre last year, or keep/start him until he dies. The only matter at hand for if you want to talk about the move in terms of this year is: Are the 2009 Packers better enough, relative to where they would be, with 2nd year Starter Rodgers vs 1st year starter Rodgers, than the 2008 Packers would have been with Favre vs Rodgers, evaluated in a "looking at the odds without hindsight" sense.

Building for the future makes no sense coming off a 13-3 season. Five plus years from now that extra season under Rodgers' belt is going to be almost meaningless. You had a chance to put some polishing touches on a team that couldn't have come much closer to the superbowl while still missing out, and instead sent the most important player on any team, and this one more so than most, packing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4089 Posts
12/11/2009 @ 07:23:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Hester's out against the Pack on Sunday, I'll probably never hear the end of it. On a way cooler side note, FSN is showing a Twins special - A September to Remember on Saturday at 7, watch it!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2846 Posts
12/12/2009 @ 06:16:33 AM
 Quote this comment
I've said all this before, but why not again. All we do is have the same Favre-based arguments over and over again anyway.

Each team probably has the proper qb for this 2009 season, but I'm with Jeremy (as I was back when it happened) that the Packers decision was a poor one when they made it.

They were holding all the cards. Even if they thought Rodgers was going to be awesome in 2008, they could have just added Favre to the mix. If Favre really wasn't as good, you play Rodgers. If Favre is better, you still have Rodgers. People think it's not that simple. And I'll agree -- to the extent that none of the scenarios we put on paper are really as simple when applied to real life. But there are two arguments that people brought up for why that wouldn't work. One was that they didn't want the awkward/bad PR situation of having to bench Favre. Which is funny, because they really avoided that didn't they? Oh, sure it's much better to have the organization and, within the next two years, 80% of its fans give their best player EVER the proverbial finger and create an ongoing awkwardness from here on out. As it was, Favre had put himself on the outside and they could have been the nice guys that brought him back. If they had to bench him, would they really have been blamed? I doubt it would have been as much as they were blamed for trading him.

The other argument was that they needed to see what Rodgers had before his contract time was up so they knew what to do with him. But what kind of reasoning is that? If you feel he's good enough to start and replace Favre in 2008, then you had better already be sure of him anyway. If not, why throw away a key component of the team that just went 13-3? "Sorry guys, I know you want to reach the Super Bowl this year, like you almost did last year, but we're going to use this season to collect data on one player instead and hope it all works out in the future."

It really all comes down to this: In short, which qb trio would really have given the 2008 Packers the best chance to get back to the NFC championship game: Favre-Rodgers-Flynn or Rodgers-Flynn-Brohm?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jon screwed with this 5 times, last at 12/12/2009 6:29:32 am
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
12/12/2009 @ 10:47:14 AM
 Quote this comment
Is this the first time that everyone has had a trophy and no one picked a winner?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
12/12/2009 @ 10:54:28 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:43:57 PM


Funnily enough, we're all the Trophy. 0-1 is good enough for 1st right now. (As always you have to pick all the games to qualify.)


Why not just go by the number of correct picks?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
12/13/2009 @ 05:06:28 AM
 Quote this comment
Lysmal, I was a little surprised to see that you picked Buffalo. Then I checked and noticed you don't seem to like picking KC. A good strategy overall I suppose. Still, it is the Bills.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this 3 times, last at 12/13/2009 5:11:04 am
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/13/2009 @ 11:33:06 AM
 Quote this comment
I would like to note that as of today I am the leading nutcanner for the season :). Thank you please save your applauses for later :D
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
12/13/2009 @ 12:00:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Sarah perfected this at 12/13/2009 12:00:55 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
12/13/2009 @ 12:00:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 11:33:06 AM
I would like to note that as of today I am the leading nutcanner for the season :). Thank you please save your applauses for later :D


Actually, you aren't. We go by number of correct picks here, which means Sarah is the leader.

EDIT: It seems Sarah beat me to the punch.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
Matt edited this 2 times, last at 12/13/2009 3:26:53 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/13/2009 @ 03:34:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:00:36 PM
Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games.


Check again...
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/13/2009 @ 03:39:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, on a lighter note, I won a Josh Freeman jersey for calling into a radio show for a trivia question. The Question: who holds the record for most interceptions thrown in a single season. The Answer? Anyone....Anyone? George Blanda. That may have been the guess for some on NutCan as it has become common knowledge that Blanda's was the record Favre broke for career interceptions. What I found interesting, the people who were calling in didn't guess anyone older than Dan Marino, and there were a lot of guesses. I swear, sometimes people think that football only dates back to 1980 or something like that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
12/13/2009 @ 04:41:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:34:11 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 12:00:36 PM
Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games.


Check again...


Check what?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/13/2009 @ 04:47:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:41:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:34:11 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:00:36 PM
Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games.
Check again...
Check what?


I'm winning by 1 win.

edit: my bad. While I am currently winning, I see that Sarah was refering to the standings prior to the start of the games today.

Edit2: also, where did you get those numbers from? You don't have 193 wins yet.

Edit3: wait, those might be total games picked between you and JFK, not wins and losses.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/13/2009 4:50:23 pm
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4089 Posts
12/13/2009 @ 07:20:10 PM
 Quote this comment
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/308065-come-to-think-of-it-bears-lovie-smith-challenges-final-score-satire

What was he thinking though? I'll call a time out, then throw the challenge flag and lose another precious timeout. Unbelievable.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
12/15/2009 @ 09:52:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy
The Cardinals embarrassed the Vikings and clicked on all cylinders. Look for them to add insult to injury this week by completely melting down.


Tada!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 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.