NFL 2010 Season Week 17 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
Panthers 10 @ Falcons 31
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Bills 7 @ Jets 38
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Buccaneers 23 @ Saints 13
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
2 Picks - 11% 17 Picks - 89%
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Dolphins 7 @ Patriots 38
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
2 Picks - 11% 17 Picks - 89%
Dolphins
Dolphins
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Raiders 31 @ Chiefs 10
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
2 Picks - 11% 17 Picks - 89%
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Vikings 13 @ Lions 20
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
10 Picks - 53% 9 Picks - 47%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Lions
Lions
Steelers 41 @ Browns 9
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
19 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Bengals 7 @ Ravens 13
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Cardinals 7 @ 49ers 38
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
8 Picks - 38% 13 Picks - 62%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
49ers
49ers
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cowboys 14 @ Eagles 13
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
3 Picks - 14% 18 Picks - 86%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Bears 3 @ Packers 10
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
6 Picks - 29% 15 Picks - 71%
Packers
Packers
Bears
Bears
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Giants 17 @ Redskins 14
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
19 Picks - 90% 2 Picks - 10%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Jaguars 17 @ Texans 34
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
17 Picks - 81% 4 Picks - 19%
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Titans 20 @ Colts 23
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
0 Picks - 0% 21 Picks - 100%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Chargers 33 @ Broncos 28
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
18 Picks - 86% 3 Picks - 14%
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Broncos
Broncos
Rams 6 @ Seahawks 16
Final
Sun, 1/2/11 7:20pm
14 Picks - 67% 7 Picks - 33%
Seahawks
Seahawks
Rams
Rams
Rams
Rams
Rams
Rams
Week Record10 - 6
0.625
9 - 7
0.562
Worst Place
10 - 6
0.625
9 - 7
0.562
Worst Place
Season Record153 - 103
0.598
150 - 106
0.586
154 - 102
0.602
151 - 105
0.590
Scotttime Record823 - 500
0.622
806 - 517
0.609
823 - 500
0.622
827 - 496
0.625
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1500 - 890
0.628
1417 - 973
0.593
1493 - 897
0.625
1486 - 904
0.622
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:156 - 100
0.609
Lifetime:837 - 482
0.635
2887.gif
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Dolphins
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Cowboys
Packers
Redskins
Texans
Colts
Broncos
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:153 - 103
0.598
Lifetime:813 - 508
0.615
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
CAR @ ATL - No Pick
BUF @ NYJ - No Pick
TB @ NO - No Pick
MIA @ NE - No Pick
OAK @ KC - No Pick
MIN @ DET - No Pick
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
CIN @ BAL - No Pick
Cardinals
Eagles
Packers
Redskins
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Seahawks

Week:4 - 4
0.500
Season:141 - 107
0.569
Lifetime:598 - 386
0.608
me.png
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Bears
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:144 - 96
0.600
Lifetime:382 - 255
0.600
gove.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:89 - 58
0.605
Lifetime:281 - 162
0.634
picture06.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Cowboys
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Seahawks

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:165 - 90
0.647
Lifetime:490 - 269
0.646
blonde_gleam.gif
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:96 - 67
0.589
Lifetime:403 - 226
0.641
skull full.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Raiders
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:60 - 33
0.645
Lifetime:68 - 39
0.635
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:153 - 103
0.598
Lifetime:325 - 197
0.623
question_mark.gif
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
Cardinals
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Texans
Colts
Broncos
Rams

Week:9 - 7
0.562
Season:155 - 100
0.608
Lifetime:313 - 169
0.649
Me at work.JPG
CAR @ ATL - No Pick
BUF @ NYJ - No Pick
TB @ NO - No Pick
MIA @ NE - No Pick
OAK @ KC - No Pick
MIN @ DET - No Pick
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
CIN @ BAL - No Pick
49ers
Eagles
Bears
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Seahawks

Week:5 - 3
0.625
Season:141 - 107
0.569
Lifetime:189 - 145
0.566
Me at sams.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
Cardinals
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:136 - 97
0.584
Lifetime:136 - 97
0.584
hambone.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Texans
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:161 - 95
0.629
Lifetime:161 - 95
0.629
Mollee.JPG
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Lions
Steelers
Ravens
Cardinals
Eagles
Bears
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Seahawks

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:95 - 68
0.583
Lifetime:95 - 68
0.583
077.JPG
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Bears
Giants
Texans
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:93 - 60
0.608
Lifetime:93 - 60
0.608
082.JPG
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Chiefs
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
49ers
Eagles
Packers
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Rams

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:82 - 67
0.550
Lifetime:82 - 67
0.550
IMG003.jpg
Falcons
Jets
Saints
Patriots
Raiders
Vikings
Steelers
Ravens
Cardinals
Cowboys
Bears
Giants
Jaguars
Colts
Chargers
Seahawks

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:71 - 40
0.640
Lifetime:71 - 40
0.640
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Vikings 13 @ Lions 20

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Webb looked good out there, but let's tone down the excitement a little, he didn't throw for 600 yards and 7 TDs.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
How does this game help the Packers get into the playoffs? It doesn't? Then nobody cares...
jon.jpg
Jon
It's been fun Brett.

Bears 3 @ Packers 10

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Go Panthers!
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Bears suck, let's hope the Packers stomp'em!
jon.jpg
Jon
This game aside, I want to say something about these two teams. They seem to have opposite reputations. The Bears do a lot of winning, but people struggle to accept them even as a good team. Meanwhile, the Packers have hovered in the mediocre range all year and yet are given the benefit of the doubt and are looked at as a fierce team. I understand the reasons for these views, but here's the thing. If a team keeps winning over a whole season, even though you think they shouldn't, they're probably a better team than you give them credit for. And if you spend an entire year waiting for a team to be consistently good, but they don't quite get there, odds are they just aren't the kind of team you're waiting for them to be.

Yeah, the Packers have lost a lot of close games this year. But that's sort of what happens in the NFL. If you give extra credit for those, then you have to discount the multiple close wins they've had as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the Packers make, and make a good run in, the playoffs. (Nothing in the NFL should surprise anyone at this point.) But I think it's more likely that they continue to be the team they've been all year and mix in some "really good" with a healthy amount of "blah."

Rams 6 @ Seahawks 16

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
I'm fine with the current system, even if a 7-9 team makes the playoffs.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Words cannot describe how excited I am for this game. Is non-excited a word? Well I guess I can sum it up.
jon.jpg
Jon
Both teams are much better home teams than on the road. But Seattle might not have their qb and I think the Rams are just a better team.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2010 @ 03:23:27 PM
 Quote this comment
I enjoy the fact that the internet is exploding over the fact that the NFL found nothing to "pin" on Favre, so they slapped some lame ass "you didn't cooperate with us on what we've concluded was a non issue to begin with" fine.

It must mean that the NFL is trying to save face and protect their "Golden Boy," despite the fact that he's not at all, and that they almost certainly look worse in the public eye by doing nothing about it. (Not to mention the fact that it would mean Goodell turned down an opportunity to make an example of someone/look like a hard ass disciplinarian.)

What it can't possibly mean is that the NFL actually found nothing that led them to beleive it was actually Favre that sent those pictures to a woman who got the whole party started by saying she got "cock shots" from lots of players, and mentioned Favre as an example, then went on to describe several details about said pictures. Pictures which never turned up.

And again, Brett isn't blameless, nor does any of this prove it wasn't true, but the amount of people that wanted so badly for it to be true is sad.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 12/29/2010 3:30:02 pm
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/29/2010 @ 04:30:14 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm ok with the current system, too, even if a 7-9 team makes the playoffs. It doesn't happen very often that a team with a bad record gets in, and that's sort of the point anyway. It makes sense that more weight is put on the division, and the wild-card entries are just that, wild card. Doesn't complain about not making the playoffs if you didn't win your own division.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
12/29/2010 @ 04:47:44 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, to a certain extent all you're trying to do is beat the teams in your division. For example, after 1998 the Packers drafted 24398 d backs in the next couple drafts to try and slow down Moss. As far as being a better overall team they might have been better off going elsewhere, but looking at is as going 10-6 while being more certain to beat your closest competition is a safer bet than trying to go 11-5, but letting that other team have 2 wins against you.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 12/29/2010 4:47:54 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
12/30/2010 @ 04:57:47 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't remember exactly how they went about doing this, but the 49ers drafted to beat the Packers after the Packers ended their season 3 years in a row, two of those times in San Francisco.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/30/2010 @ 06:59:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
12/30/2010 @ 07:13:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:59:00 PM
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments


Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
12/30/2010 @ 07:19:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:59:00 PM
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments


Then you live a pretty sad existence.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG_3063[1].jpgjthompto
12/31/2010 @ 07:29:01 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM
Alex Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments
Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.


Looks like a girl wrote that article.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
12/31/2010 @ 09:45:30 AM
 Quote this comment
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 07:29:01 AM
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:13:40 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:59:00 PM
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments
Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.


Looks like a girl wrote that article.


Yea, I really didn't read it when I wrote that, I meant the person who calls himself the daily norseman.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 12/31/2010 11:52:06 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/31/2010 @ 10:53:18 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't think I thought of Super Bowl, but I thought there was a dramatic power shift in the NFC North when Moss signed with the Vikings. So this guy, while being an incredible homer, probably wasn't too far off from what some people were thinking, in principle at least: the Vikings are better now that they have Moss. In hindsight, it couldn't have been more untrue. At least in the way Chilli handled him.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
12/31/2010 @ 11:52:18 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, they were obviously being a bit hyperbolic, but yeah, many people did think that. They were better with Moss, because everyone else went back to their normal roles while he took the top off the defense.

Unfortunately while last season's success was 65% Favre throwing deep jump balls to Sidney, we didn't actually use Moss himself for anything.

Let's also not forget that when Moss was cut we were on the cusp of having a WR corp of Moss, Harvin, and Rice on the field at the same time.

There are infinite sports articles out there that couldn't have been more wrong. Considering half this one was just talking about perception at the time, rather than a prediction, I'm not so sure it even qualifies. The only prediction they really made was that the national perception of the Packers as shoo ins might change, which it did.

The Vikings getting Moss almost certainly did make the Packers nervous, Favre probably was happy about it, the media does fawn over the Packers in a way that were it made into movie form would be sold at Adult bookstores, and Randy was a loose cannon that still made the team better. It's hard to even say what the article got wrong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
12/31/2010 @ 11:57:33 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:52:18 AM
the media does fawn over the Packers in a way that were it made into movie form would be sold at Adult bookstores


emoticon I assume that you can't mean that the Patriots or Cowboys or Colts or Eagles or Steelers or Giants or Jets get less attention than the Packers.

At best they are probably the 8th most fawned over team in the NFL.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 12/31/2010 11:58:24 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/31/2010 @ 12:03:30 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't believe I said anything about the amount of attention, or compared it to anyone else's
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/31/2010 @ 04:35:29 PM
 Quote this comment
That's literally what you said. Without explicitly comparing it to any other team, saying that they are fawned over in such a way as to make it pornographic implies a certain degree of extremeness. Does it not?

I suppose I confused "amount" of attention with "type" of attention, or perhaps "manner" in which attention is doled out, but that seems to be splitting hairs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/31/2010 4:38:16 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
12/31/2010 @ 07:22:51 PM
 Quote this comment
During Packer broadcasts who ever is announcing the games talk over each other to heap praise on anything and everything associated with the Packers organization. Brett Favre's torch of "guy we can't go 18 consecutive seconds without fellating at a distance" has passed to Aaron Rodgers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/01/2011 @ 08:08:23 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, that could be said about a lot of teams, so stating that the media fawns over the packers is like saying it snows in January and claiming that statement to be news.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
01/01/2011 @ 12:18:29 PM
 Quote this comment
So you agree then that it wasn't something the blog was wrong about?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
01/02/2011 @ 11:52:30 AM
 Quote this comment
Re: Jon's game comment, and what we've been talking about. Michael Strahan just referred to the Packers as "the best team in the NFC" multiple times, and the "hottest" once.

They lost 2 games in a row, one of them to the Lions, then beat up on the Giants. They're 1-2 in their last 3. 2-3 in their last 5.

I really don't see how any reasonable person can look at the Packers and see anything other than an inconsistent team that has almost as high a chance to implode as explode. The difference is because, as Jon hinted at, and I've been saying, they aren't reporting when they talk about the Packers, they're hoping.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 01/02/2011 3:43:44 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 05:49:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, congratulations are in order to the Lions, who didn't deserve to finish last this season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 07:31:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:52:30 AM
They lost 2 games in a row, one of them to the Lions, then beat up on the Giants. They're 1-2 in their last 3. 2-3 in their last 5.


One of which to the best team in the league by 4 points, with their backup QB starting for the first time ever, and one of the losses was in Atlanta on a last second field goal to a team that doesn't lose at home. Basically, when the Packers are good, they are as good as anyone. And, in the last half of the season, except for one game, when they do lose, they aren't really that bad. All six of the Packers losses are by 4 points or less. Every single loss was a heart breaker. Only two of their 10 wins were by less than 4 points. That means 80 percent of their wins were by more than one possession and 5 of their 10 wins were by 3 or more possessions. So to claim that you have to give equal weight to close losses as you do close wins is just absurd, because they have blown out of the teams they have beaten and have barely lost the games they lost. It all sounds like sour grapes to me. It seems to me that the Viking fans are doing more hoping than reporting too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 07:55:26 PM
 Quote this comment
The Packers have beaten 3 playoff teams. One of them was because they got to play the Vickless eagles for half a game, and one of them had nothing to play for.

I don't know what you're talking about with the close losses big win stuff, since that's wholly irrelevant.

By what reasonable measure could you call the Packers things like "hottest"? Of all teams that one game winning steaks theirs was the most impressive because they followed up almost beating a good team the week before with a blowout?

The Packers are the best team in the NFC, but they made the 6th seed on a 3 team tie breaker? Come on, man.

It's not sour grapes. No one is saying the Packers aren't a good team, but they aren't a great team, let alone best and people, that are supposed to be impartial, keep insisting they are.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 01/02/2011 8:30:19 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/02/2011 @ 08:31:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 07:55:26 PM
and one of them had nothing to play for.

I don't know what you're talking about with the close losses big win stuff, since that's wholly irrelevant.



Speaking of something that's wholly irrelavant. Even if that is true (which it is), you gonna tell me that the Bears looked like a team that wasn't playing? Did they have nothing to play for when they got humiliated by the Patriots in Chicago? The same team that the Packers took to the ropes in New England with Matt Flynn under center? If you are going to claim some things are relevant and some aren't, at least be consistent.

I'm pretty sure you are trying to not know what I'm talking about regarding close losses/big wins. Jon said the following in his game comments:
Yeah, the Packers have lost a lot of close games this year. But that's sort of what happens in the NFL. If you give extra credit for those, then you have to discount the multiple close wins they've had as well.

You CAN give extra credit for their 6 close losses while at the same time discounting their 2 close losses because...umm...let me see, there were 6 losses by 4 points or less, 2 losses by 4 points or less, and 8 wins by 2 possessions or less. The Bears on the other hand, won one more game than the Packers, won 7 of their 11 wins by 5 points or less, or in other words, they barely won the games they won. Now I'm not going to discount those wins by any means, but pardon me and every other sane person for comparing a team with 7 of 11 gut wrenching wins to a team with 8 of 10 rather comfortable wins, 5 of which were blow outs.

Only three of the Bears wins were by more than 5 points (both of which to the Vikings). 7 of the Packers wins were by 9 points or more (5 by more than 18).

The Bears haven't gotten much respect because they have not beaten anyone convincingly. The Packers have looked as good as any team in the league in most of their games. If the Packers had an equal number of close wins as they did loses, then I wouldn't argue about the close losses costing them their record.

If your only point is that the Packers get more respect than the Bears and that the Bears should get more respect, ok, point taken. But, It is an argument worth having since they Packers only managed the 6th seed while clearly being a more impressive team week in and week out than the Bears.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/02/2011 8:34:10 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 09:01:49 PM
 Quote this comment
So, in other words the Packers win by 40, or lose. Sounds like the definition of inconsistent to me. emoticon

The Bears didn't lay down, but we don't know how things would have gone if they had to play for real. Maybe Devin Hester doesn't puss out on every punt if the game matters. Maybe they played a more vanilla game plan than they otherwise would have to not tip their hand if they play again. Maybe they blitzed less. Maybe they used the game to do a little experimenting on plays/personnel packages.

Losses by less than 10:

Bears: 3, 3, 5, 7
Lions: 5,3,2,8,3,2,4
Vikings: 5, 4, 9, 4, 7
Packers: 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4

Yes, the Packers have had good wins, and tough luck losses, but Packer fans need to a) Stop acting like they own the close loss b) if you want to make some case that it's especially bad for the Packers at some point take some responsibility for them too. Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, no doubt, but I feel like he's getting a pass on the fact that he often fails when the pressure is on with "it's on the defense" hand waving, even though they often end the game with the ball in his hands and he's been given good defenses. We seem to be having the "but look how many heartbreakers they lost" conversation a lot in the Rodgers era.

(Also, I never really compared them to the Bears, Jon did, I only took umbrage to the "hottest" and "best in the NFC" nonsense.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 8 times, last at 01/02/2011 9:36:56 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
01/02/2011 @ 09:48:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Memories:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEq7p4r00U
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 09:55:26 PM
 Quote this comment
A loss by less than 10 isn't a good benchmark to use to compare close losses, because that's two posessions. If you are going to count close losses, you have to limit it to 8 points or less, or in that case, 6 or fewer, since if it's six you actually win the game with a touchdown.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:01:49 PM
Yes, the Packers have had good wins, and tough luck losses, but Packer fans need to a) Stop acting like they own the close loss b) if you want to make some case that it's especially bad for the Packers at some point take some responsibility for them too. Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, no doubt, but I feel like he's getting a pass on the fact that he often fails when the pressure is on with "it's on the defense" hand waving, even though they often end the game with the ball in his hands and he's been given good defenses. We seem to be having the "but look how many heartbreakers they lost" conversation a lot in the Rodgers era.


I don't have time to do the analysis, but there is some truth to the fact that Rodgers, while having a good defense during his tenure, has gotten the short end of the stick on many occasions. He has put his team ahead or made them tied on a number of occasions only to have the defense give up the lead on the very next possession. Now it's worth noting that other QBs don't lose those games, but in regard to this discussion, whether or not Rodgers is the reason they lose these close games is irrelevant. I feel like the topic is changing suddenly. Maybe because my points were too good.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 10:02:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Ok, so 8 points or fewer takes 1 number out of all those.

We're "shifting" because I'm just responding to your unrelated points. emoticon

Calling one of 3 9-6 teams, fighting for the last playoff spot, the "best" and a team coming off a terrible loss, a moral victory, and one actual victory, the "hottest" is borderline asinine, and illustrates the type of thing I was talking about earlier.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/02/2011 10:07:32 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/02/2011 @ 10:02:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Furthermore, I'm putting context to what I'm saying here, without which the point is not valid. I'm not saying "oh man, the Packers have some close losses so they are the only teams getting stung by close losses." I more saying that they ONLY have close losses. So compared to a lot of teams, they sort of do own the close loss. They never got blown out, they never lost by more than one possession. Every single one of their losses was by 4 points or less and 80% of their wins were by 9 points or more. Inconsistent? Yes. Cause to believe they are better than their record? Your kidding yourself if you think otherwise, in my opinion.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
01/03/2011 @ 02:16:36 PM
 Quote this comment
The playoff picks are available for picking yet. Just FYI.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
01/03/2011 @ 06:09:28 PM
 Quote this comment


Scott you're wasting your breath trying to say anything positive about the Packers to Vikings fans. Just be happy the Packers are in the playoffs. I understood your points, but then again I'm the choir.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/04/2011 @ 12:33:53 AM
 Quote this comment
That's not what's going on here at all. There's a difference between "saying something positive" and guys that are supposed to be impartial breathlessly gushing about how the just-eeked-their-way-into-the-playoffs-by-barely-winning-at-home-over-a-team-that-had-nothing-to-play-for Packers are the greatest team ever assembled.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
01/04/2011 @ 12:35:46 AM
 Quote this comment
1. I think the Packers are a good team
2. I think the Bears are a good team
3. I think it's funny that Packer fans generally consider the Bears clearly inferior despite a better record and (only now) a split head to head where both games were close. Based on the prevailing opinions of the two teams, the Packers should be embarrassed that they didn't win by 3 touchdowns. Maybe both teams are..wait for it...about as good as their record says they are.

Again, I think the Packers are good. But not great. Or very good. Or significantly above good. Just good. Like a 10-6 team. I don't think a 10-6 "win big/lose close" team is any better suited for the playoffs than a 10-6 team whose wins and losses were mixed. A 14-2 team or 13-3 team whose only losses were close might be something. But at what point are a bunch of close losses just an indication that you're a pretty good but not very good team? I'd say 6 of 16 games would be enough.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
01/04/2011 @ 12:43:42 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:35:46 AM
1. I think the Packers are a good team
2. I think the Bears are a good team
3. I think it's funny that Packer fans generally consider the Bears clearly inferior despite a better record and (only now) a split head to head where both games were close. Based on the prevailing opinions of the two teams, the Packers should be embarrassed that they didn't win by 3 touchdowns. Maybe both teams are..wait for it...about as good as their record says they are.

Again, I think the Packers are good. But not great. Or very good. Or significantly above good. Just good. Like a 10-6 team. I don't think a 10-6 "win big/lose close" team is any better suited for the playoffs than a 10-6 team whose wins and losses were mixed. A 14-2 team or 13-3 team whose only losses were close might be something. But at what point are a bunch of close losses just an indication that you're a pretty good but not very good team? I'd say 6 of 16 games would be enough.


Indeed. At some point "we only lose close ones" is an indictment of your team, and not just crap luck. When it's the Lions going 6-10 despite being within 5 of the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game dropping 7 it's "Well, that's why they're the Lions." When the Packers drop 6 of them it's "oh, what a heart breaker!"

Not to mention that's sort of a crummy heuristic anyway, because the NFL doesn't play until a team wins by at least 7, you only need to win by one. The winning team often could score more, but they play the clock as much as the scoreboard.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 01/04/2011 9:56:09 am
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
01/04/2011 @ 07:47:27 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:43:42 AM

Indeed. At some point "we only lose close ones" is an indictment of your team, and not just crap luck. When it's the Lions going 6-10 despite being within 5 of the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game dropping 7 it's "Well, that's why they're the Lions." When the Packers drop 6 of them it's "oh, what a heat breaker!"

Not to mention that's sort of a crummy heuristic anyway, because the NFL doesn't play until a team wins by at least 7, you only need to win by one. The winning team often could score more, but they play the clock as much as the scoreboard.


In a vacuum, there is nothing to argue with about this statement. But I don't think it applies to the comparison between Bears and Packers because the Bears have to say "we lose close games AND we get blown out occasionally". I'm saying if you look at the body of work, the Packers have been a more impressive team. They haven't ever been dominated in any stretch of the imagination. The Bears got absolutely humiliated at home by the Patriots. Other than the Lions game, the Packers haven't been shutdown this season. Despite their records, which is only 1 game, the Packers wins have been more impressive and their losses have been less questionable.

The Lions have lost a number of heart breakers, but please don't compare a 6-10 team to a 10-6 team. You still have to win games. If the Packers were 6-10 and I were arguing that they were better than the 2 seed because they have close losses I would be calling myself insane too.

I feel like the other side of this argument is being laid forward as "The Bears have a better record so it is insane to say that the Packers are a better team." I disagree with that statement.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
01/04/2011 @ 09:52:29 AM
 Quote this comment
I wasn't "comparing" the Lions and Packers, and I don't think anyone is necessarily "comparing" the Bears and Packers. We're talking about the attitude. Could someone make a case the Packers are the better team? Sure. However the national discussion is that the Bears suck, and that the Packers are the best team in the NFC, which is contrary to reality. That's all we're talking about.

Plus what's more humiliating, getting blown out by the best team in the league, or getting completely stymied by, and losing to, the then 2 win Lions in what looked to be a must-win game? I think you could make a good case for either.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/07/2011 @ 05:52:01 PM
 Quote this comment
The Packers have the biggest point differential in the NFC by a wide margin. The next closest is the Falcons, and after that it's a landslide. The Packers have won 7 of their last 10 games (only 1 NFC did better), and two of their 3 losses in that time frame were to the conference number 1s. Maybe people are talking about the Bears not being good because despite their record they've never really looked that good. And maybe people are talking about the Packers as being good is because, despite their record, they have looked a ton better (than, say, the Bears). I'm not saying the Packers should be given the Lombardi trophy or anything like that. It's just not that absurd to be making that particular claim, if that's what you are arguing about. The only definitive point one can make about why the Packers aren't the best team is their record. So from a strictly hard core objective viewpoint, clearly that's the case. But, when you start breaking down the different stats (and I don't mean murdering the numbers to say that somehow the Panthers are as good as the Patriots; so far for this point, I haven't ventured off of this page to gather my stats, which a click on a few of the teams' sites just to see their schedules), you can take a different approach and see things a different way.

Basically, I don't see it as drastically absurd or as asinine as you are making it seem.

(I should get a life, maybe one where I write about house projects)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 01/07/2011 5:54:44 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
01/07/2011 @ 06:06:44 PM
 Quote this comment
One last note:

I'll put it this way, a team that wins a lot of close games and doesn't score a lot of points, has a QB who's terrible for a number of games and pretty good in other games doesn't strike people as being an impressive team. I think that's where some of the discussion comes from.
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.