NFL 2010 Season Conference Championships 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 2014 Season Week 8 Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Packers 21 @ Bears 14
Final
Sun, 1/23/11 2:00pm
11 Picks - 69% 5 Picks - 31%
Packers
Packers
Bears
Bears
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Jets 19 @ Steelers 24
Final
Sun, 1/23/11 5:30pm
8 Picks - 50% 8 Picks - 50%
Steelers
Steelers
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Steelers
Steelers
Week Record2 - 0
1.000
First Place
0 - 2
0.000
Worst Place
1 - 1
0.500
2 - 0
1.000
First Place
Season Record158 - 108
0.594
151 - 115
0.568
158 - 108
0.594
157 - 109
0.590
Scotttime Record828 - 505
0.621
807 - 526
0.605
827 - 506
0.620
833 - 500
0.625
Lifetime Record1505 - 895
0.627
1418 - 982
0.591
1497 - 903
0.624
1492 - 908
0.622
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Packers
Steelers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:159 - 107
0.598
Lifetime:840 - 489
0.632
2887.gif
Packers
Steelers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:159 - 107
0.598
Lifetime:819 - 512
0.615
images.jpg
Packers
Jets

Week:1 - 1
0.500
Season:86 - 68
0.558
Lifetime:724 - 477
0.603
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Packers
Steelers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:147 - 111
0.570
Lifetime:604 - 390
0.608
skull full.jpg
Bears
Steelers

Week:1 - 1
0.500
Season:65 - 38
0.631
Lifetime:73 - 44
0.624
IMG_498362853876.jpeg
Bears
Jets

Week:0 - 2
0.000
Season:155 - 111
0.583
Lifetime:327 - 205
0.615
Me at work.JPG
Packers
Jets

Week:1 - 1
0.500
Season:146 - 112
0.566
Lifetime:194 - 150
0.564
hambone.jpg
Packers
Steelers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:167 - 99
0.628
Lifetime:167 - 99
0.628
Mollee.JPG
Packers
Jets

Week:1 - 1
0.500
Season:97 - 70
0.581
Lifetime:97 - 70
0.581
077.JPG
Bears
Jets

Week:0 - 2
0.000
Season:95 - 68
0.583
Lifetime:95 - 68
0.583
krystal.bmp
Bears
Jets

Week:0 - 2
0.000
Season:83 - 72
0.535
Lifetime:83 - 72
0.535
IMG003.jpg
Packers
Steelers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:79 - 42
0.653
Lifetime:79 - 42
0.653
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Packers 21 @ Bears 14

sarah.jpg
Sarah
This could be the most intense game ever. Wow, Packers, Bears, NFC Championship game. What I wouldn't do for some Packer fan friends right about now...
jon.jpg
Jon
It's hard for me to separate what I want to happen from what I think will happen on both Championship games. Packers get this on "tie-breaker" criteria. Essentially, I think this could go either way. But the Bears have an interception prone qb going against a good defense that has shown they're able to pressure him. That said, even with that advantage, the Packers have hardly manhandled the Bears in two previous meetings. I want to reiterate, I think this could go either way. The other tiebreaker that goes in the Packers advantage is this: Franchise-type quarterback. Super Bowls are generally won by teams with a franchise qb. I understand this is the Conference Championship, but it's obviously a factor in who wins the Super Bowl, so when you're splitting hairs, it gets some attention.

Jets 19 @ Steelers 24

sarah.jpg
Sarah
If Rex Ryan says they're going to the Super Bowl, then by golly the Jets are going to the Super Bowl. (that's how that works right?)
jon.jpg
Jon
I'm just tired of the Steelers. Just tired of them.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
01/18/2011 @ 02:30:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Blah.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
IMG003.jpg6timechamps
01/18/2011 @ 02:34:34 PM
 Quote this comment
Pittsburgh got this on lock they winning afc championship then off to bring home a seventh Superbowl title!!!!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/18/2011 @ 03:39:19 PM
 Quote this comment
I need to convince myself that this game isn't simply a formality for the inevitable Super Bowl appearance. I'm not think it from a nobody-can-beat-the-packers homerish kind of way, but I have convinced myself that they indeed are invincible. I feel the danger as a fan of going into a game like this with this mindset. There actually is going to be another team on the field that also would like to win and get to the Super Bowl.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - I'm on a boat! Everybody look at me cause I'm sailing on a boat!
01/18/2011 @ 04:05:35 PM
 Quote this comment
The theme for Packer fans this week should be "Remember Super Bowl XXXII."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
01/18/2011 @ 04:23:35 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it should be, Remember 2007. They made it into Super Bowl XXXII. Besides that, if they get into the Super Bowl and lose, I don't think it will be because Mike McCarthy had an ego the size of Texas that prevented him from even considering bringing in some extra protection for Rodgers in the face of unrelenting pressure.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/18/2011 4:24:31 pm
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - 219 Posts
01/19/2011 @ 01:28:07 PM
 Quote this comment
6timechamps Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:34:34 PM
Pittsburgh got this on lock they winning afc championship then off to bring home a seventh Superbowl title!!!!


You would have to get a new username then!!! That would be terrible!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
01/21/2011 @ 02:10:16 PM
 Quote this comment
2 more days and I can stop obsessing about this game! Of course, there's a pretty good chance the next two weeks will be pretty obsessive-inducing too. No....Sleep....till dallas!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 01/21/2011 2:14:27 pm
IMG003.jpg6timechamps
01/22/2011 @ 11:51:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah but a new user name wouldn't be a problem the beat the Steelers at home once and lost the previous seven playing them there so I think they got this
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/23/2011 @ 05:20:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Is it safe to call the Packers the best/hottest team in the NFC now? Boom!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8424 Posts
01/23/2011 @ 05:26:53 PM
 Quote this comment
Possibly, but that doesn't make any previous arguments more right or wrong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
01/23/2011 @ 05:31:02 PM
 Quote this comment
except that maybe those who said they the best team (and it was not just a couple people) saw something in the Packers that others didn't. It's all moot now, I suppose, because those that thought the Packers were the most dangerous or best team in the playoffs were indeed right, and those that thought they were wrong were actually wrong. The arguments being made might not have been vindicated with these results, but it wasn't chance luck that those who claimed it ended up being right.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
01/23/2011 @ 05:32:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Superbowl!!! And the Packers will get their act together and play better in a dome anyway. :)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/23/2011 @ 05:34:15 PM
 Quote this comment
playing on the worst playing surface in the league can do anything to any team. a good surface will fix things.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8424 Posts
01/23/2011 @ 05:41:14 PM
 Quote this comment
How do you know? They had no objective reason to claim those things, and people don't retroactively get reasons to justify past arguments. No one is "vindicated." Not to mention half the point wasn't if it's right or wrong, but why so many people were so eager to make the point.

Anyone watch 24? On the last season the head of the IRK got paranoid that everyone was against him and started locking up random people, including his head of security that had never done anything wrong or given anyone any reason to think anything but the best of him over many years. People fought the president on it, and eventually helped the head of security escape. Then in typical 24 "twist" fashion you find out he really was working against him.

That didn't make the President "right". He still fired him for no reason. Call it "dumb luck" if you want, there was no case to be made, and he was only shown to have made the correct choice later on.

Also, for the record, I never had any problem with calling them the "most dangerous". I think that was a perfectly apt description. They can drop 45 on anyone. My beef is people seemed to ignore the fact that they can also completely lay an egg.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 01/23/2011 6:06:06 pm
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 3565 Posts
01/23/2011 @ 05:56:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Anyone going to Dallas?emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
01/23/2011 @ 06:49:15 PM
 Quote this comment
RAJI!!!!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3588 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 12:37:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Really, you're going to turd that? Takes one to know one I guess.



The Packers are! I don't think I really have an extra $3,000 for a ticket myself.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 03:17:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:41:14 PM
How do you know? They had no objective reason to claim those things, and people don't retroactively get reasons to justify past arguments. No one is "vindicated." Not to mention half the point wasn't if it's right or wrong, but why so many people were so eager to make the point.
...


Well, I know that when the majority (maybe the majority, but maybe just the majority among the media elites) makes some claim like that, and then it is fulfilled, maybe it should be looked at that they were indeed on to something. When an individual talks trash and then backs it up, it looks like they actually know what they are talking about; but if they talk trash and then fall flat on their face, they look like fools. The same can be said about a commentor making analysis or predictions about a game or a team. Pretty much everyone who was calling the Packers the hottest/best team in the NFL look like geniuses (and really, substitute hottest/best with most dangerous, and I think we are probably splitting hairs with terms); they turned out to be correct. And it wasn't based on nothing. As I have pointed out rather well in past arguments, the Packers had been playing pretty good football except for at Atlanta (1 seed), at New England (1 seed), and at detroit (no excuse here, just a bad game).

Maybe the President had a gut feeling.

As for laying an egg, they laid one egg in the last 10 games of the regular season, and blew out multiple opponents. so they "can" lay an egg, maybe 10% of the time.

(extra stat, with no implied meaning whatsoever: the Packers never trailed at any point during the 2011 season by more than 7 points. No NFL team has ever accomplished that)

edit: respond only if you want. I'm probably going to let this one go, unless of course you really say something that grinds me gears. Then I'll start the next post with "You know really grinds my gears?..."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 5 times, last at 01/24/2011 3:39:13 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 03:31:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Oh, and as for the other game. I initially picked the Jets sort of the same reason I picked the Packers. I thought they had a ton of momentum going being the underdog or whatever. But, the reason is I changed my pick (on Wednesday or Thursday, I think) was because the Jets weren't doing any trash talking all week; at least not the slightly mean-spirited kind they had done leading up to the previous two games. Clearly they had lost their edge. That was 100% my reasoning for switching my pick to the Steelers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 03:37:55 PM
 Quote this comment
And my Jay Cutler thoughts:

The NFL players that called him out for not being tough, or questioning ihis heart, I think did a disservice to themselves as well as the rest of the players as a whole. Players complain all the time that the media jumps on to made up story lines without knowing all the facts all the time. Well, now the "media" in this case is the players themselves. Maybe Cutler's body language throughout his career didn't help his cause here, but how can the players now ever get upset about the media creating their own storylines when the players themselves are guilty of the exact same thing. Cutler was probably legitimately injured. Lovie Smith said that it was the medical team that made the decision to pull him out. AND, that decision was made after he had tried to play on that injured knee into the 2nd half. And now because of the players tweeting from the comfort of their own couch while the player they are critizing is playing for a title, all the media is talking about now is Jay Cutler and the idiot players tweeting about his lack of heart. The Chicago Bears have gotten more coverage today than the Jets, Packers, or Steelers combined.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3588 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 04:35:27 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm not sure if this is getting any coverage or not, but what was Collins smoking yesterday? He pretty much single handedly gave up 14 points.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 04:53:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 04:35:27 PM
I'm not sure if this is getting any coverage or not, but what was Collins smoking yesterday? He pretty much single handedly gave up 14 points.


I couldn't tell who was more at fault for Knox's big touchdown late. Woodson was on him initially, but it looked like he peeled off assuming Collins was going to come up. By the time Collins got off his couch, Woodson already had lost a step and Knox was gone. At least that's what it looked like to me from first glance. I couldn't tell if Woodson should have stayed on him longer or if Collins fell asleep. Either way, they booth looked as if they just stopped playing in the middle of that play.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
01/24/2011 @ 06:08:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:17:52 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:41:14 PM
How do you know? They had no objective reason to claim those things, and people don't retroactively get reasons to justify past arguments. No one is "vindicated." Not to mention half the point wasn't if it's right or wrong, but why so many people were so eager to make the point.
...


Well, I know that when the majority (maybe the majority, but maybe just the majority among the media elites) makes some claim like that, and then it is fulfilled, maybe it should be looked at that they were indeed on to something. When an individual talks trash and then backs it up, it looks like they actually know what they are talking about; but if they talk trash and then fall flat on their face, they look like fools. The same can be said about a commentor making analysis or predictions about a game or a team. Pretty much everyone who was calling the Packers the hottest/best team in the NFL look like geniuses (and really, substitute hottest/best with most dangerous, and I think we are probably splitting hairs with terms); they turned out to be correct. And it wasn't based on nothing. As I have pointed out rather well in past arguments, the Packers had been playing pretty good football except for at Atlanta (1 seed), at New England (1 seed), and at detroit (no excuse here, just a bad game).

Maybe the President had a gut feeling.

As for laying an egg, they laid one egg in the last 10 games of the regular season, and blew out multiple opponents. so they "can" lay an egg, maybe 10% of the time.

(extra stat, with no implied meaning whatsoever: the Packers never trailed at any point during the 2011 season by more than 7 points. No NFL team has ever accomplished that)

edit: respond only if you want. I'm probably going to let this one go, unless of course you really say something that grinds me gears. Then I'll start the next post with "You know really grinds my gears?..."


Well, first off, we don't know anything. We still don't know the Packers are the "best" team. You're asserting to know they knew something, and it wasn't just a random assertion, but you don't know that. "Maybe they saw something" means jack. They made a baseless assertion ignoring virtually all evidence to the contrary that a team that had won one game in a row, after losing two in a row, and wasn't in the playoffs and needed to beat a team that had nothing to play for to claim a 3 way tie for the last playoff spot was the best and hottest team in the league . It was asinine, and it remains asinine. If they are right, it was for the wrong/no reason. Again, it's like hitting on 20 in blackjack, and drawing an ace, no amount of hindsight makes that a reasonable move, ace or not. Any arguments you've made to date have been put through a "someone is trying to argue the Packers aren't a good team," lens, which isn't the case. BEST is different. Atlanta won 30% more games, only lost to PHI, PIT, and NO, AND BEAT THE PACKERS. Almost 40% of the NFC had a better or equal record.

And again, you're still ignoring the larger point, which wasn't even an argument of its validity per se, but rather one of why some teams get doted on while others get crapped on. The media, basically, openly roots the the Packers and everything about the Packers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 01/24/2011 6:21:06 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3588 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 06:30:17 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:53:32 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 04:35:27 PM
I'm not sure if this is getting any coverage or not, but what was Collins smoking yesterday? He pretty much single handedly gave up 14 points.


I couldn't tell who was more at fault for Knox's big touchdown late. Woodson was on him initially, but it looked like he peeled off assuming Collins was going to come up. By the time Collins got off his couch, Woodson already had lost a step and Knox was gone. At least that's what it looked like to me from first glance. I couldn't tell if Woodson should have stayed on him longer or if Collins fell asleep. Either way, they booth looked as if they just stopped playing in the middle of that play.


It looked like Woodson had underneath coverage and Collins was supposed to help over the top, but regardless of that even it was almost like Collins thought the ball was going to go right through the receiver and was going to intercept it somehow, and then when the receiver made a fairly routine catch Collins was so stunned that he just stood there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
01/24/2011 @ 06:32:55 PM
 Quote this comment
My other thought from yesterday is that McCarthy should take notes on how to run out the clock from the Steelers. They threw at least 2 passes with under 3 minutes remaining and they were rewarded with not having to punt.

Also, Starks earned a coveted staying in bounds fail.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
01/24/2011 @ 07:39:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 06:08:36 PM
They made a baseless assertion ignoring virtually all evidence to the contrary...


Except that you apparently ignored any evidence that I made. If you disagree with that evidence, that's fine. But I gave lots of evidence. I'm not asserting to know anything about the motives of those that made the claims. You seem to be asserting to know that I am asserting something which I'm not. The word "maybe" is pretty clear that it is one possibility. I said "maybe they saw something", not "I know for a fact that they saw something and I have proof that I just don't feel like sharing".

While I don't think the Packers are universally fawned over like some would suggest, maybe the fact the that they were at the end of this year suggests that they were indeed that good. Based on your assertions, they might have well called the Lions the best team in the league because there was no evidence for that either. I'm saying that given the results of the last month, those that made the claim are looking awfully good. It wasn't just one guy. And fine, if we want to get back to the root of this discussion, it was hard to make the argument that the Packers were the best team then (if you are going to try to claim that they aren't the NFCs best team now, then the entire playoff system is one big fat scam), but the point is, what are arguing now? You can use the blackjack and chance luck analogies all you want, but if 10 people have 20 and draw an ace, you start to wonder if the deck is rigged.

Back to the evidence thing, you are being insanely selective yourself. You are only looking at like a three game sample (saying the Packers won 1 game in a row after losing two in a row), and apparently just ignored my analysis of their last 10 games.

Besides, what does "Best" even mean? No one would argue that the Packers had the best regular season, that's what record is for. But ones you get into the final weeks of the season, "best" becomes a lot more subjective. You start to look at who looks better as a playoff team, who do you think will go far in the playoffs.

My arguments are relevant to the original argument, and here's why. You are making the point that the media illogically roots for the Packers and your evidence is that they called the Packers the "best" (I only know of Michael Strahan to use that phrase, most called them "hot" or "most dangerous"). I mostly disagree with that assertion based on my above arguments, and the past arguments I've made. Maybe they actually were all of those things, and if so, then it isn't rooting, but rather speculative, if not accurate analysis. And, as it turned out, the Packers are the best team in the NFC. Are they now the best team only because they won the NFC? Or did they win the NFC because they were the best?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/24/2011 7:42:22 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 07:45:22 PM
 Quote this comment
I'm suggesting that "maybe they saw something that gave them reason to believe the Packers were that good." Your asserting that they just love the colors green and gold, the city of Green Bay, and the Legend of Lambeau and didn't know what else to conclude.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8424 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 08:58:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:39:56 PM
Besides, what does "Best" even mean? No one would argue that the Packers had the best regular season, that's what record is for. But ones you get into the final weeks of the season, "best" becomes a lot more subjective.


So no one would argue they had the best regular season, they're just the best because of the season they had in a parallel universe? Because because because because, because of the wonderful things they does?

I think looking at the last how ever many games it takes to get to a loss or two when calling someone "hottest" is perfectly reasonable. If a team won 6 games in a row by 20, then lost two, would you call them "hot"?

And this is really a separate issue, but I don't think the playoff system determines the best team, and I don't really think you think that either, unless of course you define "best" as "team that won the Superbowl". Any team can win any Sunday, and obviously those teams are going to tend to be the cream of the crop, but the best team doesn't always win.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
01/24/2011 @ 11:33:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 08:58:50 PM
but the best team doesn't always win.


Or the Vikings would be 0-16!

Seriously though, this is the worst pointless "debate" you two have ever had. And in this case I define "worst" as I stopped reading your comments 3 weeks ago.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2407 Posts
01/24/2011 @ 11:58:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, tangential arguments notwithstanding, I feel like what I wrote before week 17 was confirmed:

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."


Turns out the Bears weren't who a lot of people thought they were, seeing as their reputation was dirt and the Packers' was golden. Or maybe the conclusion is that both teams are crappy. Frankly, I don't really care which conclusion is drawn as long as there's some realization that the teams seemed to get basically opposite treatment despite proving to be basically equal. (2-1 head to head in 3 close games; Bears had better reg. season record). I don't really care what the motivation or reason for this was. In conclusion, I'd like all Packer fans to apologize to the Bears for not giving them their proper respect. Or, if they contend that the Bears actually were a sucky team, then I'd like them to admit that the Packers suck on essentially the same level. That's basically all I ask. Pretty reasonable, I think.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this 3 times, last at 01/25/2011 12:01:34 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8424 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 12:11:53 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:33:57 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:58:50 PM
but the best team doesn't always win.


Or the Vikings would be 0-16!

Seriously though, this is the worst pointless "debate" you two have ever had. And in this case I define "worst" as I stopped reading your comments 3 weeks ago.


I agree, but only because I can't believe it's being debated.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
01/25/2011 @ 12:16:19 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:58:49 PM
Well, tangential arguments notwithstanding, I feel like what I wrote before week 17 was confirmed:

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."


Turns out the Bears weren't who a lot of people thought they were, seeing as their reputation was dirt and the Packers' was golden. Or maybe the conclusion is that both teams are crappy. Frankly, I don't really care which conclusion is drawn as long as there's some realization that the teams seemed to get basically opposite treatment despite proving to be basically equal. (2-1 head to head in 3 close games; Bears had better reg. season record). I don't really care what the motivation or reason for this was. In conclusion, I'd like all Packer fans to apologize to the Bears for not giving them their proper respect. Or, if they contend that the Bears actually were a sucky team, then I'd like them to admit that the Packers suck on essentially the same level. That's basically all I ask. Pretty reasonable, I think.


A few weeks ago my coworker asked if I thought the Bears were a better team than the Packers, and basically anything other than a hesatation-less "Are you kidding?? Waaahahahahaha" just made me a hater Viking fan, because the Packers are clearly on a whole other planet of spectacular awesomeness.

I get that people are irrational, even during all this every time I saw the Bears, except in person, I thought "God this team sucks", but at some point you have to look at what's actually taking place. By any objective standard of measuring things they're fairly equal teams, probably with a marginal edge to the Packers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 12:24:39 am
2887.gifAlex - 3588 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 12:57:02 AM
 Quote this comment
This is all I say, Packers are 3rd on this list, Bears are 16th. Any given week the Bears have a chance to win, but they would be largely dependent on their #1 special teams ranking (or TD passes being overruled). The defenses were pretty even, and I'll take the clearly superior offense over the clearly superior special teams every time.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

And if you go the second chart it rates the Bears as the 30th most consistent team as opposed to the Packers at 15th. So yes there was media fawning, but it wasn't completely unbased at least, maybe just unprofessional.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2407 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 02:16:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:57:02 AM
This is all I say, Packers are 3rd on this list, Bears are 16th. Any given week the Bears have a chance to win, but they would be largely dependent on their #1 special teams ranking (or TD passes being overruled). The defenses were pretty even, and I'll take the clearly superior offense over the clearly superior special teams every time.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

And if you go the second chart it rates the Bears as the 30th most consistent team as opposed to the Packers at 15th. So yes there was media fawning, but it wasn't completely unbased at least, maybe just unprofessional.


Well, first of all (and this was probably your point for using the stat) the consistency rating wasn't necessarily a good/bad number. It's how they varied from week to week. The Redskins were ranked 4, Detroit was 5, Carolina 7. Overall, the top 10 is kind of an even mix of the consistently good with the consistently bad. So the Bears were just a tough team to wrap your mind around. Which is a fair point and explains why they had a less-than-stellar reputation despite the record.

I'm not sure if it ever made "print" on this site, but my defense of the Bears came about largely (though not solely) from one PTI segment. The topic for the segment was a question about the Bears. The question was "Are the Bears Good?" They were 8-3 at the time. 8 and freaking 3! You know who they had just beaten? The Eagles. So they're 8-3, just beat one of the best teams in the NFC but didn't get any respect. They didn't ask, "How good are the Bears?" or "Are the Bears THIS good?" They asked "Are the Bears Good?"

Now, it started out for me as just a defense of the Bears in general. But it's way more interesting to view it in contrast with the Packers. So let's do that. I don't remember what the talk was about the Packers at that exact point, after the games were played for the week. But I know that the previous week leading up to that point was all about the buildup to the Packers Falcons game and how it was possibly for the #1 seed. So basically, unless I'm wrong, we had the 7-3 Bears and the 7-3 Packers going into the week. They each play one of the top teams in the NFC. The Bears beat the 7-3 Eagles by 5 and the Packers lose to the 8-2 Falcons by 3. And the question is about whether the Bears are good? Again, I don't know what the Packers talk was, but they were already being positioned as one of the top teams in the NFC before the week, so it hardly makes a difference since the Bears still weren't at that level in the eyes of some.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon perfected this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 2:21:35 am
jon.jpgJon - 2407 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 02:53:01 AM
 Quote this comment
Also, I forgot to mention

Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:57:02 AM
This is all I say, Packers are 3rd on this list, Bears are 16th. Any given week the Bears have a chance to win, but they would be largely dependent on their #1 special teams ranking (or TD passes being overruled). ...


The Packers were basically a TD pass being overruled from losing to the Vikings. So I'd pick a different criterion for this particular topic.

There are too many of those little things to point to over the course of the year. They may not literally even out for all teams, but isolating one for one team probably isn't very fair.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 01/25/2011 2:54:01 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
01/25/2011 @ 09:44:46 AM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, and that's an especially odd comment given the fact that the Bears game was the right call, and were it not for the biennial "bone the Vikings in Lambeau, then issue an apology" from the NFL we wouldn't be talking about the Packers anymore at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3588 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 11:27:57 AM
 Quote this comment
I just thought it was mandatory to bring up that play in any discussion about the 2010 Bears season. It's rule 23.A.1-5 of the media coverage rules and I dare not come up with my own talking points .

My point was, these metrics clearly had the Packers ranked ahead of the Bears. And you can argue the value of the metric or the methods use to compile them, but they projected the Packers as a 10.9 win team and the Bears as an 8.3 win team, which seems to indicate the Bears were a little luckier than the Packers throughout the regular season. And furthermore they were actually more inconsistent than the Packers, which like Jon said isn't really good or bad, but I feel like consistency of the teams was being represented the opposite way here or at least the Packers were being ripped for their inconsistency when they were ranked right in the middle in those terms.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
01/25/2011 @ 12:05:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:58:50 PM
I think looking at the last how ever many games it takes to get to a loss or two when calling someone "hottest" is perfectly reasonable. If a team won 6 games in a row by 20, then lost two, would you call them "hot"?

And this is really a separate issue, but I don't think the playoff system determines the best team, and I don't really think you think that either, unless of course you define "best" as "team that won the Superbowl". Any team can win any Sunday, and obviously those teams are going to tend to be the cream of the crop, but the best team doesn't always win.


Your first question, I might consider that team "hot", depending on who the two losses were against, and by what point margin.

Your second point, I do sort of judge the "best" team as the winner of the Super Bowl. Call me romantic or a purist, but winning the Super Bowl gives you the right to call yourself the best. What defines "best" then? Having players with superior skill? Are the Patriots the best team because they were 14-2 in the regular season? They lost at home in the playoffs. Might they still beat pretty much every team in the league? Probably. Then why did they lose whe it mattered most? The Super Bowl winner might not be the "best" team on paper, but they earned the tournament bid, won the tournament, and were better on the field than any team they played. If I ever stopped believing that this was the case, I think I would start questioning the point.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8424 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 12:20:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it wasn't any implied criticism. If you define best that way that's fine. Personally I think the fact that any one can win IS the point. I don't think the Giants were a better team than the previously unbeaten Patriots, and yes the Patriots were almost certainly the best team this season. Upsets and Cinderella teams are half the reason sports are exciting. If the better team always won sports would be pretty lame.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6091 Posts
01/25/2011 @ 12:43:00 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't take it as a criticism, I actually might be a purist, or whatever. I actually agree with you. My only wrinkle, I guess, is that winning earns you the right to be called "the best". Nobody will remember 10 years from now who was the "best" team in the league (being the patriots). They only remember the Super Bowl winner. So I guess that's my point.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
01/26/2011 @ 02:52:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:05:23 PM
...they earned the tournament bid, won the tournament...


Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 12:43:00 PM
...winning earns you the right to be called "the best"...



Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jon perfected this 9 times, last at 01/26/2011 3:06:05 am
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.