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 2023 Season Super Bowl Picks.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Chargers 42 @ Titans 17 Final Fri, 12/25/09 6:30pm
|
Chargers
 |
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
||||
| Broncos 27 @ Eagles 30 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Eagles
 |
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Panthers 41 @ Giants 9 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Giants
 |
Giants
|
Giants
|
Giants
|
||||
| Buccaneers 20 @ Saints 17 final overtime Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
Saints
|
||||
| Jaguars 7 @ Patriots 35 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Texans 27 @ Dolphins 20 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Dolphins
 |
Dolphins
|
Texans
 |
Dolphins
|
||||
| Ravens 20 @ Steelers 23 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Ravens
 |
Steelers
|
||||
| Seahawks 10 @ Packers 48 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Packers
 |
Seahawks
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Raiders 9 @ Browns 23 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Raiders
 |
Raiders
|
Raiders
|
Raiders
|
||||
| Chiefs 10 @ Bengals 17 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
||||
| Bills 3 @ Falcons 31 Final Sun, 12/27/09 12:00pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Lions 6 @ 49ers 20 Final Sun, 12/27/09 3:05pm
|
49ers
 |
49ers
|
49ers
|
49ers
|
||||
| Rams 10 @ Cardinals 31 Final Sun, 12/27/09 3:05pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
||||
| Jets 29 @ Colts 15 Final Sun, 12/27/09 3:15pm
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| Cowboys 17 @ Commanders 0 Final Sun, 12/27/09 7:20pm
|
Cowboys
 |
Cowboys
|
Cowboys
|
Cowboys
|
||||
| Vikings 30 @ Bears 36 final overtime Mon, 12/28/09 7:30pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
||||
| Week Record | 10 - 6 0.625  | 9 - 7 0.562 | 10 - 6 0.625 | 10 - 6 0.625 | ||||
| Season Record | 155 - 85 0.646 | 156 - 84 0.650 | 153 - 87 0.637 | 162 - 78 0.675 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 657 - 383 0.632 | 638 - 402 0.614 | 648 - 392 0.623 | 659 - 381 0.634 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3291 - 1921 0.631 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | 3319 - 1893 0.637 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1334 - 773 0.633 | 1249 - 858 0.593 | 1318 - 789 0.625 | 1318 - 789 0.625 |
Broncos
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Steelers
Packers
Raiders
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Commanders
Bears
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 163 - 77 0.679 |
| Lifetime: | 668 - 372 0.642 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Eagles
Giants
Saints
Patriots
Dolphins
Ravens
Packers
Browns
Bengals
Falcons
49ers
Cardinals
Colts
Commanders
Bears
| Week: | 9 - 6 0.600 |
| Season: | 127 - 54 0.702 |
| Lifetime: | 345 - 188 0.647 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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!
| Seahawks 10 @ Packers 48 | |
 | SarahNo Mike Holmgren and no Brett Favre, so not a lot happening with this game. oh! Mr. August! |
 | JonNo one will take Green Bay seriously until they start wearing neon green uniforms. |
| Cowboys 17 @ Commanders 0 |  |
| SarahWhat made me pick the Redskins last week? I have no frickin' clue |
 | MattWhile I think that Washington will play better than last week, it still won't be enough against Dallas. |
| JonNot 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 |  |
| SarahHuh, Vikings don't do too well in the spotlight, maybe I should go with Da Bears. |
| MattThe offensive line better step-up. Jimmy Kleinsasser can only do so much by himself. |
| JonSometimes a Sunday noon game isn't such a bad thing. |
 | JeremyThe 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. |
  | Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 12/22/2009 @ 11:54:53 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
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! |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Musch 12/23/2009 @ 03:18:12 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
"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. |
Yours:
Total:   Rated 3 times. |
|
  | Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 12/23/2009 @ 09:32:42 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzpowxGfVFE |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Scott - 6225 Posts 12/23/2009 @ 11:56:22 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The stats in the "make your own picks" screen has the Vikings at 11-2. I knew this thing was rigged. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Sarah - So's your face 12/23/2009 @ 05:01:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 12/24/2009 @ 04:53:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Article about Woodson http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?page=hotread15/Woodson |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 12/26/2009 @ 09:21:34 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| UPSET SPECIAL: Redskins beat cowboys, Bears BEAT vikings |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
 | Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 12/26/2009 @ 09:33:04 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 12/26/2009 @ 11:56:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 12/27/2009 @ 12:23:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 12/27/2009 @ 12:24:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Btw I wrote that on iPhone. Forgive my spelling for both posts. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 12/27/2009 @ 01:11:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| So Giants really don't want to go to the playoffs huh? I'm all for that! |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - 229 Posts 12/27/2009 @ 02:08:13 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Sarah - So's your face 12/27/2009 @ 02:09:12 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I just want to clinch today!! Da da dada da da da |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 12/27/2009 @ 03:35:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Pack is going to playoffs. :D |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/27/2009 @ 06:35:48 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| No guts no glory Indy. That was pathetic, should've gone for the perfect season. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 12/27/2009 @ 08:13:05 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Aaron Rodgers became the first qb in NFL history to throw for 4,000 yards in each of his first two seasons as starter. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 12/28/2009 @ 09:36:25 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this at 12/28/2009 10:06:21 am | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 12/28/2009 @ 10:16:40 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 12/28/2009 10:29:45 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 11:05:19 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
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.  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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 8 times, last at 12/28/2009 11:29:52 am | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/28/2009 @ 12:53:42 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 12/28/2009 12:56:38 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 12/28/2009 @ 01:00:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Do you think the fact that Rodgers started last year will have any meaningful difference 5-7 years from now? |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 01:04:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 12/28/2009 @ 01:05:47 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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.) |
Yours:
Total: Rated 2 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 1:09:39 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 01:31:31 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 01:41:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 1:42:14 pm | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 12/28/2009 @ 01:49:38 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 12/28/2009 1:56:56 pm | ||
  | Micah - 584 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 02:23:19 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Ah to see the other side of 6-10 again....... |
Yours:
Total: Rated 2 times. |
|
|
| Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 12/28/2009 @ 03:44:08 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 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.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/28/2009 3:51:12 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 07:45:04 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 12/28/2009 @ 11:32:43 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Da Bears win me da trophy! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/28/2009 @ 11:39:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 12/28/2009 11:40:38 pm | ||
 | Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/29/2009 @ 07:40:01 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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!  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/29/2009 @ 08:04:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 12/29/2009 @ 10:16:31 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Playing? Played. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/29/2009 @ 11:52:00 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/29/2009 @ 12:17:14 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/29/2009 @ 05:32:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| where are the week 17 picks? that page is blank when I got to make my picks. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 12/29/2009 @ 05:38:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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). |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/29/2009 @ 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. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 12/29/2009 6:17:51 pm | ||
|
| Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 12/29/2009 @ 07:16:25 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
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? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 01/01/2010 @ 07:36:45 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Y2K, yes. Y2.01K is still in beta |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
Leave a Comment of your very own
| Name: | |||
| Comment: | |||
| |||
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.
Fetching Nutcan Content....
Chargers 42 @ Titans 17
Sarah
Merry Merry Merry Christmas!Matt
Merry Christmas everybody!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
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snowGave 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!"