NFL 2009 Season Week 16 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 2019 Season Week 3 Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Chargers 42 @ Titans 17
Final
Fri, 12/25/09 6:30pm
13 Picks - 65% 7 Picks - 35%
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Broncos 27 @ Eagles 30
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
4 Picks - 17% 19 Picks - 83%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Panthers 41 @ Giants 9
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
3 Picks - 13% 20 Picks - 87%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Buccaneers 20 @ Saints 17
final overtime
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
1 Pick - 4% 22 Picks - 96%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Jaguars 7 @ Patriots 35
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
1 Pick - 4% 22 Picks - 96%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Texans 27 @ Dolphins 20
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
7 Picks - 30% 16 Picks - 70%
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Dolphins
Texans
Texans
Dolphins
Dolphins
Ravens 20 @ Steelers 23
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
11 Picks - 48% 12 Picks - 52%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Ravens
Ravens
Steelers
Steelers
Seahawks 10 @ Packers 48
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
1 Pick - 4% 22 Picks - 96%
Packers
Packers
Seahawks
Seahawks
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Raiders 9 @ Browns 23
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
13 Picks - 57% 10 Picks - 43%
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Chiefs 10 @ Bengals 17
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bills 3 @ Falcons 31
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Lions 6 @ 49ers 20
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 3:05pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
Rams 10 @ Cardinals 31
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 3:05pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Jets 29 @ Colts 15
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 3:15pm
0 Picks - 0% 23 Picks - 100%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Cowboys 17 @ Redskins 0
Final
Sun, 12/27/09 7:20pm
21 Picks - 91% 2 Picks - 9%
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Vikings 30 @ Bears 36
final overtime
Mon, 12/28/09 7:30pm
20 Picks - 87% 3 Picks - 13%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Week Record10 - 6
0.625
9 - 7
0.562
10 - 6
0.625
10 - 6
0.625
Season Record155 - 85
0.646
156 - 84
0.650
153 - 87
0.637
162 - 78
0.675
Scotttime Record657 - 383
0.632
638 - 402
0.614
648 - 392
0.623
659 - 381
0.634
No-Pack-Vike Record2539 - 1482
0.631
2466 - 1555
0.613
2549 - 1472
0.634
2513 - 1508
0.625
Lifetime Record1334 - 773
0.633
1249 - 858
0.593
1318 - 789
0.625
1318 - 789
0.625
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Chargers
Broncos
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Redskins
Bears

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:163 - 77
0.679
Lifetime:668 - 372
0.642
newalex.jpg
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Texans
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Bears

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:155 - 84
0.648
Lifetime:642 - 396
0.619
goodlooking.jpg
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:141 - 84
0.627
Lifetime:624 - 396
0.612
image.jpeg
LAC @ TEN - No Pick
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:9 - 6
0.600
Season:122 - 64
0.656
Lifetime:241 - 164
0.595
vignette.bmp
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:115 - 65
0.639
Lifetime:437 - 260
0.627
flower .jpg
Titans
Broncos
Panthers
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:141 - 81
0.635
Lifetime:452 - 301
0.600
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:157 - 83
0.654
Lifetime:443 - 266
0.625
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
LAC @ TEN - No Pick
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Redskins
Bears

Week:9 - 6
0.600
Season:127 - 54
0.702
Lifetime:345 - 188
0.647
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Titans
Broncos
Panthers
Saints
Patriots
Texans
Steelers
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:141 - 68
0.675
Lifetime:402 - 216
0.650
me.png
Titans
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:151 - 88
0.632
Lifetime:238 - 159
0.600
picture06.jpg
Titans
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Texans
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:148 - 88
0.627
Lifetime:310 - 168
0.648
blonde_gleam.gif
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:159 - 78
0.671
Lifetime:290 - 149
0.661
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:159 - 80
0.665
Lifetime:159 - 80
0.665
question_mark.gif
LAC @ TEN - No Pick
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:8 - 7
0.533
Season:138 - 76
0.645
Lifetime:138 - 76
0.645
question_mark.gif
Titans
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Texans
Ravens
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:112 - 74
0.602
Lifetime:112 - 74
0.602
question_mark.gif
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Texans
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:142 - 65
0.686
Lifetime:142 - 65
0.686
bill2.jpg
Chargers
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Jaguars
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:94 - 59
0.614
Lifetime:94 - 59
0.614
Me at work.JPG
Titans
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:36 - 30
0.545
Lifetime:36 - 30
0.545
question_mark.gif
Titans
Broncos
Panthers
Buccaneers
Patriots
Texans
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Cowboys
Vikings

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:32 - 16
0.667
Lifetime:32 - 16
0.667
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Chargers 42 @ Titans 17

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Merry Merry Merry Christmas!
matt.jpg
Matt
Merry Christmas everybody!
jon.jpg
Jon
It's strange because Tennessee is playing just about as well as anyone, except for maybe a team like San Diego. Chris Johnson with Vince Young is like super X factor or something. Who knows what could happen.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of midday to objects below;
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be Saint Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name.

"Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on, Cupid! on Dunder and Blixem!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now, dash away! dash away! dash away all!"

Seahawks 10 @ Packers 48

sarah.jpg
Sarah
No Mike Holmgren and no Brett Favre, so not a lot happening with this game. oh! Mr. August!
jon.jpg
Jon
No one will take Green Bay seriously until they start wearing neon green uniforms.

Cowboys 17 @ Redskins 0

sarah.jpg
Sarah
What made me pick the Redskins last week? I have no frickin' clue
matt.jpg
Matt
While I think that Washington will play better than last week, it still won't be enough against Dallas.
jon.jpg
Jon
Not to be one-upped, Daniel Snyder will actually have a giant hd screen suspended from a fleet of blimps throughout the game.

Vikings 30 @ Bears 36

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Huh, Vikings don't do too well in the spotlight, maybe I should go with Da Bears.
matt.jpg
Matt
The offensive line better step-up. Jimmy Kleinsasser can only do so much by himself.
jon.jpg
Jon
Sometimes a Sunday noon game isn't such a bad thing.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Panthers decimation of the Giants makes me feel a little better about last week. If the Vikings lose this one, it's really time to be worried.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
12/22/2009 @ 11:54:53 PM
 Quote this comment
3rd most interesting game on the regular season calendar for the Vikings in my mind. Last time Favre was in Chicago for week 16 he went 17-32 for 153 yards and 2 interceptions. The year before that he did manage a 70 rating in week 17. But he put up a 52 in week 13 the year before that.

In other news, I'm going to GB Sunday! We'll take the ball, and we're going to score!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
me.pngMusch - 20 Posts
12/23/2009 @ 03:18:12 AM
 Quote this comment
"We'll take the ball, and we're going to score!"
Isn't that a quote delhomme made in the super bowl in overtime and then lost?
Oh how embarrassing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/23/2009 @ 09:32:42 AM
 Quote this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzpowxGfVFE
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/23/2009 @ 11:56:22 AM
 Quote this comment
The stats in the "make your own picks" screen has the Vikings at 11-2. I knew this thing was rigged.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
12/23/2009 @ 05:01:44 PM
 Quote this comment


Those were some good times. Me and my immediate family were there and while I couldn't enjoy the game because the Packers couldn't just outright beat the 'hawks I certainly loved the ending!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
12/24/2009 @ 04:53:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Article about Woodson

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?page=hotread15/Woodson
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/26/2009 @ 09:21:34 PM
 Quote this comment
UPSET SPECIAL: Redskins beat cowboys, Bears BEAT vikings
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/26/2009 @ 09:33:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex's Predictions for 2009-2010 Football year: UBER FAIL

The Green Bay Packers will win the NFC North at 11-5
Minnesota 8-8
Repeat from last year, “Pass defense and pass offense have to be concerns until proven otherwise.” Also, there's still a potential for the Williams boys to be suspended I think. I see a 4-1 start, followed by things not going so well, particularly in the last 3 road games and week 17 game against a Giants team that may need a win for a playoff push.

Alex wow man, way off, I noticed in that post u made there you didnt mention anything about the combo AP- Favre would have. Packers winning the NFC North? You thought that? wow. I thought I was nieve.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
12/26/2009 @ 11:56:21 PM
 Quote this comment


Nope, just a bad speller.

11-5 is looking like a pretty decent prediction at the moment. Minnesota leads the league in sacks, but is 26th in passer rating allowed. I guessed wrong on the Williams suspension obviously. And I'll admit I underestimated how much Favre had left in him. But he's put up 3 straight 70ish passer ratings in a row, and they aren't exactly peaking at the right time. As for the AP-Favre combo, I felt that angle was a horse already well beaten.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 12:23:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Well said. But if ur going to talk about the Minnesota Vikings, regardless of how well that horse was beaten, u need to talk about to AP FAVRE combo. You were right about the Vikings losing more and ending on a weak note, but any loyal packer fan in recent years could tell you favre sucks in December. Just like what happened to the jets last year. The thing most laughable is you thought the Vikings to be 8-8. I knew they were most likely going to beat the pack, and sweep the NFC north. But here's one for you. Pack goes to playoffs. Wins wildcard. Goes to divisional and plays Vikings in Minnesota. Beats Vikings. Goes to NFC CHAMPIONSHIP. and that's as far as I go.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 12:24:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Btw I wrote that on iPhone. Forgive my spelling for both posts.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4111 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 01:11:15 PM
 Quote this comment
So Giants really don't want to go to the playoffs huh? I'm all for that!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 02:08:13 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not. I don't want cowboys going to playoffs. They can still make it if they win next week and cowboys lose remaining games.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
12/27/2009 @ 02:09:12 PM
 Quote this comment
I just want to clinch today!! Da da dada da da da
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 03:35:39 PM
 Quote this comment
Pack is going to playoffs. :D
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4111 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 06:35:48 PM
 Quote this comment
No guts no glory Indy. That was pathetic, should've gone for the perfect season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/27/2009 @ 08:13:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Aaron Rodgers became the first qb in NFL history to throw for 4,000 yards in each of his first two seasons as starter.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 09:36:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Rothlisberger just became the first Steeler to ever do it. Brandon Marshall caught his 100th ball the other day giving him 100+ in 3 seasons in a row on a team known for their running. It wasn't all that long ago where Herman Moore and Cris Carter traded their best marks to try and get the long standing record that was around 120. 1/3 of the quarterbacks in the league could have 4000 by the end, and 8 already do. (And Scaub is leading the league in yards, so it's debatable how tell-tale that stat is anyway.)

Long story short, I think it's more a factor of the game itself changing than it is anything else. 1000 yards for a running back used to be a stellar season. Now teams often have 2 backs over 1000, and if your featured back finished with 1000 you'd consider that a so-so year.

Rodgers hasn't done bad, but he also just crossed the .500 mark as a starter. I think I'd take Rothlisberger's career start so far.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/28/2009 10:06:21 am
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/28/2009 @ 10:16:40 AM
 Quote this comment
Sure, 2 Super Bowls will help that cause any time. Offensive numbers are higher now than they were even 10 years ago. I'm still definitely satisfied with Rodgers though, and the decision to move on without Favre in hindsight is without question looking better and better with each passing week.

It still is a very noteworthy event that he was indeed the first to do it. Plus, all the guys you mentioned aren't rookies/2nd year players.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/28/2009 10:29:45 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
12/28/2009 @ 11:05:19 AM
 Quote this comment
Peyton Manning threw for 3700 yards on a team that won 3 games the season before in his actual rookie year, and then followed that up with six 4000 yard seasons in a row. Sure, that exact arbitrary set of constraints has never happened, but that type of thing has certainly been trumped. In his maiden season, the one following the year you were a hair short of the Superbowl, Aaron Rodgers led a team to 6 wins that won 13 the year before and 10 or 11 the next. 6! Meanwhile Brett has put up similar numbers on other teams that won more games with one year in their system. I'm not so sure you know what "hindsight" means. emoticon

The fact that, in your mind at least, it wasn't a bad move, doesn't automatically make it a good move.

Put it another way, they are putting up similar numbers, so you can't make any sort of claim about being better off with Rodgers, but you can say that if Favre is qb for the Packers he's not qb for the Vikings. You guys could probably be playing for the #2 seed at this point with the division wrapped up. You, if being generous, came out even in the move, while winning 2-3 more games for your biggest competitor. If you were in first place in your fantasy league and you dropped a guy to pick up another, and the guy you picked up put up 5 more points than the guy you dropped over the last 2 weeks, but the guy you dropped was the missing piece for the 2nd place team and he put up 20 more points than the guy the 2nd place team had on his roster, and the 2nd place team overtook you because of it, would you consider that transaction a good move? I think not.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 8 times, last at 12/28/2009 11:29:52 am
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/28/2009 @ 12:53:42 PM
 Quote this comment
I said Rodgers' stat was notworthy, not a end-all for him being greatest QB ever.

Favre (and the Vikings for that matter) doesn't have to suck for the Rodgers decision to be seen as a good one. Favre is on a different team, but running the same offense. He got hurt last year with NYJ, and the Packers, the 3rd youngest team in the league, maybe just traded 1 year of being bad for 5, 6, or 7 years of being perenial contenders.

I know exactly what hindsight means. it means knowing what I know now, do I think something done without that information was right or wrong. Well, knowing what I know now, Rodgers is indeed the correct QB for ther Packers.

Besides using fantasy sports as your analogy is stupid considering that a real football team must also consider the future of the organization.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 12/28/2009 12:56:38 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
12/28/2009 @ 01:00:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Do you think the fact that Rodgers started last year will have any meaningful difference 5-7 years from now?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/28/2009 @ 01:04:11 PM
 Quote this comment
yes I do, because otherwise, maybe the 6-10 record would have happend this year. Or maybe Rodgers would have bolted for a team that wanted to start him.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 01:05:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Why does it matter what year the 6-10 record happens in? (I guess, by the way, we've now officially glossed over the fact that you consider 6-10 a bad season that probably would have been better without the switch, which is what we've been spinning our tires over for 2 years now.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 1:09:39 pm
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/28/2009 @ 01:31:31 PM
 Quote this comment
it doesn't. What matters is that they have a QB for long term. Favre is no longer a long QB. And with the youngest team in the NFL 3 years runnings, last year was the perfect time to start grooming a new QB.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 01:41:51 PM
 Quote this comment
You literally came as close as possible to getting to a Superbowl without getting in. How is that the perfect time to start rebuilding? They'd still have Rodgers and his future either way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 12/28/2009 1:42:14 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 01:49:38 PM
 Quote this comment
6-10 is bad, yes. The year before they were 13-3, and the year before that they were 5-11. But again, even if they would have been better than 6-10 last year, there's no certainty that they would have had another Super Bowl run. And as it turned out, the arrival of Rodgers actually brought to light at least one major hole in the Packers; their defense. And it led to a complete overhaul in their defensive scheme, which I has clearly been a change for the better; I think their defense is better now that it has been in probably 15 years. So it seems that the Packers are better at this point (not record-wise, but just teamwise) than they were during that playoff run. I think they are in a better position if not this year, than next year to be a contending force in the NFC.

I wouldn't say replacing the QB constitutes rebuilding. And how do you know they'd still have Rodgers. What if he gets pissed for being a backup for 5 or 6 straight years and demands to traded. Even some of the most upstanding teammates can take offense if they feel slighted enough.

Edit: And it should be noted as well that Favre has struggled in recent years outdoors in the cold weather. Bob McGinn, a very credible writer for JSOnline said of Favre in the NFC Champ game against the Giants, that he never looked older and colder than he did during that game. Favre is doing great with Minnesota, but he playing indoors, unaffected by the elements. His play last season in New York in December, along with his injury, is evidence of that. In other words, one of the biggest "home field advantages" that the Packers enjoy in the winter may have become too much for the QB they needed to flourish within it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/28/2009 1:56:56 pm
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 02:23:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Ah to see the other side of 6-10 again.......
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 03:44:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Even if switching from Rodgers to Favre cost them 3 games somehow, they still wouldn't have made the playoffs. Despite that being the only major personnel change, they somehow went from a decent defense to a horrible defense, and I don't think that was Rodgers' fault. So in hindsight, it was probably better to get Rodgers some game experience instead of going 9-7 with Favre.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 03:49:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, the offense and defense don't work in a vacuum from each other. Unless you think Corey Williams was worth 4 extra wins.

(Though I agree that 6-10 and finding out what Rodgers can do would be better than a playoff missing 9-7 season from Favre, I just don't think there's any evidence that's what would have happened, nor is that really the point anyway.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/28/2009 3:51:12 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 07:45:04 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:49:17 PM
Well, the offense and defense don't work in a vacuum from each other. Unless you think Corey Williams was worth 4 extra wins. (Though I agree that 6-10 and finding out what Rodgers can do would be better than a playoff missing 9-7 season from Favre, I just don't think there's any evidence that's what would have happened, nor is that really the point anyway.)


That's the exact point I am trying to make. And why is there no evidence for a 9-7 season? They were 5-11 the year before their 13-3 season. Further more, short of making and winning the Super Bowl, would making the playoffs at 11-5 and getting bounced in the 2nd round even have been a success if a year or two down the road Rodgers is able to get them to the Super Bowl and win? Whatever you just said about it not being the point anyway is in fact the exact point I am trying to make.

What if they kept Favre and the Packers kept being "just good enough" to get deep into the playoffs but never a Super Bowl. How long should they play that game? Knowing that there is a small window of success, and knowing that they had the youngest team in the league last season, it stands to reason that it was absolutely the best time to take a step back to make sure that their young QB can learn and peak hopefully the same time that the rest of the young team can mature in a year or two. Otherwise, you toy around with Favre for maybe 2 more years, and now you are starting from scratch with a QB who has never started a game, and then the conversation starts about the Packers being a Super Bowl ready team if they only had an experienced QB. If you look at the big picture instead of singling it down to one season this move was a no-brainer.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
12/28/2009 @ 11:32:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Da Bears win me da trophy!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
12/28/2009 @ 11:39:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:45:04 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:49:17 PM
Well, the offense and defense don't work in a vacuum from each other. Unless you think Corey Williams was worth 4 extra wins. (Though I agree that 6-10 and finding out what Rodgers can do would be better than a playoff missing 9-7 season from Favre, I just don't think there's any evidence that's what would have happened, nor is that really the point anyway.)


That's the exact point I am trying to make. And why is there no evidence for a 9-7 season? They were 5-11 the year before their 13-3 season. Further more, short of making and winning the Super Bowl, would making the playoffs at 11-5 and getting bounced in the 2nd round even have been a success if a year or two down the road Rodgers is able to get them to the Super Bowl and win? Whatever you just said about it not being the point anyway is in fact the exact point I am trying to make.

What if they kept Favre and the Packers kept being "just good enough" to get deep into the playoffs but never a Super Bowl. How long should they play that game? Knowing that there is a small window of success, and knowing that they had the youngest team in the league last season, it stands to reason that it was absolutely the best time to take a step back to make sure that their young QB can learn and peak hopefully the same time that the rest of the young team can mature in a year or two. Otherwise, you toy around with Favre for maybe 2 more years, and now you are starting from scratch with a QB who has never started a game, and then the conversation starts about the Packers being a Super Bowl ready team if they only had an experienced QB. If you look at the big picture instead of singling it down to one season this move was a no-brainer.


Sometimes I wonder if you read what you write. You often make a pretty sound argument against what you're trying to say, then draw the opposite conclusion from your points.

Edit: Forgot the emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 11:40:38 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
12/29/2009 @ 07:40:01 AM
 Quote this comment
That was an awesome game to be at. See my FB deal for pics. (Would have added more, but FB has become a beyotch lately)

You've gotta love a game at Lambeau, especially during a route like that!emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 08:04:39 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:39:29 AM
Sometimes I wonder if you read what you write. You often make a pretty sound argument against what you're trying to say, then draw the opposite conclusion from your points.


Let me clarify this statement:
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:45:04 PM
Knowing that there is a small window of success, and knowing that they had the youngest team in the league last season


Ok, when I referred to the "small window of success", I can see how that might instantly point to keeping Favre being the only sane choice. But the "small window" I was referring to actually hasn't necessarily opened up yet. The Packers caught lightening in a bottle 2 years ago. They were the league's youngest team, hardly a team you could say was "built to win now". The point I was trying to make was this: Perhaps that gave a false sense of how good the Packers as a team really were. If they continue to ride that out and maybe do just a little worse the next year and not win a Super Bowl, do they try again yet another year with Favre? With Favre carrying the team on his back like he always has and would still need to, would the Packers finally get back to the Super Bowl this season with Favre? My answer to that question is I don't think so. So what is the conclusion then? Take your medicine, be willing to be bad for a year, and do everything you can to make your new QB (who is no rookie by anyone's imagination) mature right along with the team he needs to lead. Because right now, the Packers are playing about as good of football as anyone.

Just for the record, the moment the Giants beat the Patriots in the SB two years ago, I instantly said there was no way the Packers would have beat the Patriots. I was questioning their defense even at that time.

And the Vikings are playing themselves right out of a first round bye.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:16:31 AM
 Quote this comment
Playing? Played.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 11:52:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, they still have a chance if Philly loses. But I want philly to win for more than one reason, mainly because if Dallas loses and the Packers Win, then the Packers would most likely play at Arizona, which I think is the most favorable matchup for the Packers.

Of course, there is still a scenario that would have the Packers playing the Vikings in the first round, which maybe would be the better week to play them, because it would mean that the Vikings have lost 4 of 5 and don't have a bye week to work with. But I believe too that this would require the Packers to lose next week, and I would rather the Packers win thier last game going into the Playoffs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 12:17:14 PM
 Quote this comment
NFC Playoff Scenarios
6 of the 8 scenarios have the Cardinals playing the Packers. One scenario has the Packers playing the Vikings, and one has the Packers playing the Cowboys.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/29/2009 @ 05:32:40 PM
 Quote this comment
where are the week 17 picks? that page is blank when I got to make my picks.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/29/2009 @ 05:38:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Saw this on an ESPN message board. I found this interesting:

just some food for thought, this December the Saints and Vikings have lost more games (5) than Philly, Dallas, Arizona and Green Bay combined (4).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
12/29/2009 @ 06:11:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Hmm, I'm not sure why thy weren't imported way back when. I guess I'll have to add them.

Edit: Fixed, the file had them all as 1/4/09, so as far as the website was concerned, they were over.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/29/2009 6:17:51 pm
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - Tag This
12/29/2009 @ 07:16:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:11:55 PM
Hmm, I'm not sure why thy weren't imported way back when. I guess I'll have to add them. Edit: Fixed, the file had them all as 1/4/09, so as far as the website was concerned, they were over.


Is this site Y2K compliant?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/01/2010 @ 07:36:45 AM
 Quote this comment
Y2K, yes. Y2.01K is still in beta
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.