NFL 2010 Season Super Bowl 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Packers 21 @ Bears 14 Final Sun, 1/23/11 2:00pm
|
Packers
 |
Bears
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Jets 19 @ Steelers 24 Final Sun, 1/23/11 5:30pm
|
Steelers
 |
Jets
 |
Jets
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Week Record | 2 - 0 1.000  | 0 - 2 0.000  | 1 - 1 0.500  | 2 - 0 1.000 | ||||
| Season Record | 158 - 108 0.594 | 151 - 115 0.568 | 158 - 108 0.594 | 157 - 109 0.590 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 828 - 505 0.621 | 807 - 526 0.605 | 827 - 506 0.620 | 833 - 500 0.625 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3291 - 1921 0.631 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | 3319 - 1893 0.637 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1505 - 895 0.627 | 1418 - 982 0.591 | 1497 - 903 0.624 | 1492 - 908 0.622 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Jets 19 @ Steelers 24 | |
 | SarahIf 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?) |
 | JonI'm just tired of the Steelers. Just tired of them. |
  | RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 06:46:29 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
Lions will be here next year. Suh and Johnson are going to recruit some FA's at the pro-bowl...  |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
| RUFiO1984 perfected this at 01/25/2011 6:47:10 am | ||
  | Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 12:09:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Packers open up as 2.5 point favorites! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 01/25/2011 @ 12:32:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'd like to point out the success of Ted Thompson. He has gotten little to no credit from a lot of Packer fans throughout his time as the Packers' GM. In fact, he has been ridiculed relentlessly for all sort of things. It seems that the biggest, and possibly only, real criticism that anyone can come up with him relates to Justin Harrell. While that pick might have been a big bust, for every criticism that anyone can find regarding Ted Thompson, there are probably 10 moves he has made (or hasn't made, for that matter) that have put the Packers where they are right now. There are some very obvious ones like Aaron Rodgers, that should not be dismissed. 23 other teams passed on him, and Thompson didn't. Others like Clay Matthews and BJ Raji, both first rounders in the same year, are clear evidence of his ability to make moves to get the right players. Signing Charles Woodson was huge too, especially coming from a guy who's biggest philosophy has been avoiding big name free agents; but when he does pull the trigger, it pays off. On top of some of these now sexy looking picks, he has discovered unwanted talent in the form of Sam Shields and Tramon Williams (undrafted, huge impact especially in the playoffs). He chose not to pull the trigger for Marshawn Lynch during the season, which a lot of people figured would have cost him AJ hawk and possibly a first round draft pick (Marshawn Lynch did not turn out that well). He made the decision to bring in Dom Capers who transformed the Packers defense into a scheme that seems to be on display as the marquee way to stop today's high octane NFL passing offenses (the steelers run the exact same defense as green bay). He cut Al Harris, knowing that he had found talent to replace him, and he cut Aaron Kampman, who while being a good player, no longer fit in the Packers new defensive scheme. Both players were pro bowlers, yet both moves seemed to have worked, or at least have not hurt. The most glaring move he has made, one that could have been his make or break moment, was the decision to cut ties with Brett Favre. There's no telling what might have happened in the past three years, but there was a very real chance that Rodgers would have walked after the 2008 season if Favre had come back. Rodgers' contract was going to expire, and a first round draft pick never allowed to start might have found somewhere else if given the opportunity. In my opinion, the move to move on was Thompson's finest, and might be the move for which he is remembered most. All things being said, this is the 2nd team Thompson built that got to the Super Bowl (the seahawks a few years back were built by him, even though he was gone by the time they got there), and it's the 3rd team he's gotten to an NFC Championship game. If the Packers win this game, he will have to be up there with Ron Wolf as the great GMs in Packers history. If not, he is still the reason the Packers have built a team that looks to be successful for the long term. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 01/25/2011 12:59:38 pm | ||
  | Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 01/25/2011 @ 12:48:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well, maybe this is nit picking, because he certainly hasn't done a bad job, but that doesn't mean a) the usual criticism is all wrong b) we know what the opposite could be. Maybe you guys win back to back superbowls with Favre and/or some of those free agents. Maybe Marshawn Lynch runs for 900 yards in his half season with the Packers. The fact that the Packers are a good team doesn't mean there's nothing that could have been done to make them better. Also no one has a crystal ball. People can call it a special "eye" if they want, but no one has super powers. A lot of it is rolling the dice, and sometimes you're going to roll big* and sometimes those rolls bunch up. However, like I said, that's nit picking (what would nutcan be without it) and the people arguing he's wrong about almost everything he does are wrong. *To nit pick a little more, obviously he could have said no, but it's probably a little unfair to add "drafted Aaron Rodgers" to his "reasons why I'm awesome" list. He could have been the #1 pick. At some point he becomes a must-draft for the first team that has even a little foreseeable need at QB. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 12:49:54 pm | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 01/25/2011 @ 01:01:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
To respond emotionally to your admitted nit picking (what would nutcan be without that), Rodgers wasn't his marquee move necessarily, but he didn't do what 23 other people did. He didn't pass on the guy, so while there was a good deal of luck with Rodgers ending up 24th, he did make the call to take him. It shouldn't be dismissed necessarily, because it seemed to be the obvious move. The point is, it seemed to be the obvious move for the first 23 teams that passed on him. (How's Erasmus James doing these days?) Maybe Favre does come back and win back to back super bowls. It seems unlikely, but I suppose not impossible. But, even if they do, having a franchise QB is everything in this league. When he had the chance to make a pretty smooth transition from one franchise QB to another guy who they predicted correctly might become another franchise QB, Thompson made the move. That's why it was such a key move, and the fact that it worked out makes him look like a genius. It's hard to even say "well, what if it didn't work out", because they weren't just shooting craps. It might have been a little bit of a gamble in the perspective that no one can predict the future (Rodgers could have been hit by a train the day Favre signed with the Jets), but they had watched this guy for 3 years and had a pretty good idea what they had. In terms of "we know what the opposite could be", that's obviously a good point. Aaron Kampman could have become a 20 sack guy, even in the 3-4 scheme. That being said, they got rid of him, and from the appearance here, their defense was still pretty darn good. Maybe Lynch runs wild behind the Packers O-line, but he didn't with Seattle, so that's how I judge that. Nobody makes every move correctly. That's not my point (nor do I think you are claiming that it is). But Ted Thompson should be revered by Packer fans rather than being called to be fired the way he has been for 3 or 4 years now. Edit: I refered to the Aaron Rodgers move as the "obvious" one for the very reason you stated. It was a very obvious move, with very obvious results in hindsight. But, I think it's at least legitimate to include in his resume. That's why I added a lot more examples. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 01/25/2011 1:09:59 pm | ||
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 01:29:42 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Revered is a bit much. He's done a good job and there's no reason to call for him to fired at this point. But I think the coaching staff deserves just as much credit if not more for keeping the going this year. To me, a GM is awesome if can swing one sided trades, or talk big free agents into town, or give early extensions to right players (Tramon, baseball example of Braun), and avoid the roster killing big contracts. When you have a team with a number of young players stepping up in crucial times, the GM can take some credit but the scouts probably deserve as much, and the coaches even more for getting those guys ready to play. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 01/25/2011 @ 01:35:36 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I think you miss a certain side of the argument. You say that a GM is awesome if he can talk a big free agent into town. That's under the assumption that that's the best move. Sometimes NOT going after a free agent is the best move. It can be sexier to pull in a big name, but free agents can be even riskier than rookies; they cost more and if they don't work out you just screwed your team for more than just the present. They might be known comodities, but then again they might not fit your system. Whatever, my point here is that people often assume that not going after big name free agents is a weakness of a GM. I think it can very much be to a GM's credit for not doing so. And since "not making a move" isn't really news, fans generally don't appreciate the "move" to "not move". |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 01/25/2011 1:41:06 pm | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/25/2011 @ 01:52:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| And on an unrelated note, the Packers are the home team in the Super Bowl. I don't know if that's a NutCan error, or an error in the feed you use to update the games, but it has the Packers listed as the visiters at the top there. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 01:53:08 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The Vikings actually passed on him twice, but they had Culpepper and Johnson on the roster, and needed to replace Moss* and get dline help. I don't view the draft in terms of outcome, everyone is pretty much guessing. I view it in terms of how well you play that game. I don't give Thompson any points for drafting Rodgers, and I don't take away any points for AJ Hawk being a bust (or at least not worthy of the lofty pick) because both guys were an automatic selection for the slot. I forget specifics, and I'm too busy to look now, but I remember talking in the past about how the consensus was the Packers reached, sometimes severely, for a number of guys. You can select 3 perennial probowlers in a draft, if you drafted everyone of them 2 rounds before they would have been on anyone else's radar, you sucked, because you could have had those 3 and other guys, and you took a bigger gamble on them than need be. *Which is one of the biggest reason the Williamson pick sucked so bad. He could have been awesome, but you don't take a guy that might not make the first round, and is only in that conversation at all because he's fast, with the #7 pick. People miss on top 10 picks all the time, but you need to go with a guy who's the consensus slam dunk at that pick, or trade down. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 1:59:59 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 01:53:53 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:52:18 PM I enter them, and I didn't look, because it doesn't matter. And on an unrelated note, the Packers are the home team in the Super Bowl. I don't know if that's a NutCan error, or an error in the feed you use to update the games, but it has the Packers listed as the visiters at the top there.   |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 01/25/2011 @ 02:03:05 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Re: Aaron Rodgers. If I said it, then you do have a good point about drafting. Although, there should be some points because some teams absolutely suck at drafting and some seem to have a knack for it. But, regardless, I'll modify, or clarify, my statement regarding Rodgers. Drafting him wasn't the marquee move; the decision to cut ties with Favre and move on with Rodgers was. There should definitely be credit for that decision. Being good in the draft might require some luck, but you can't tell me that it's a crap shoot that the Packers traded up to get 2 first rounders, drafted Raji and Matthews, and they just happened be amazing at what they do. Maybe they did just get lucky with that one, but the point I'm trying to make is that Thompson pulled the trigger to make that move when others didn't. Certain teams do indeed seem to do better at acquiring players in the draft than others. And of course, the draft itself isn't the whole picture, necessarily. I'm looking at his whole body of work. (But Thompson does seem to have had pretty good success in the draft, overall). |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 01/25/2011 @ 02:19:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I won't cut you off if you are responding to my comment. I don't want to get off on a needless tangent. My point isn't that Thompson is a good drafter and Rodgers is my example. My point is that Thompons is a good GM and Rodgers is one example among many, from draft picks to talent seeking to signing players to cutting players. He has made a lot of right moves in all phases of the game, and I belive he has made a lot more good moves than bad moves. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 01/25/2011 2:26:47 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 02:34:33 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Yes, it's a craps shoot, and both players just happened to be good. I mean, look at it from the other direction. Yes, scouting is a skill, and there can be somethings that some guys see that some schlubs off the street don't see, and maybe even that other scouts don't see, but you're talking about a league that's analyzed so heavily that the relative differences are likely small. There's not really a whole lot of room to be "better" because when you get right down to it, what would you be attributing that to? Yes, they have data to look at, so choosing between drafting Alex Smith and Scott Matson isn't a coin flip, but Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers is a different story, and that's especially true when comparing a wide receiver and a linebacker. The Packers either have a crystal ball, or some super awesome talent judge that slept in on draft Justin Harrell, AJ Hawk, Brandon Jackson, and the 19 defensive backs that didn't work out day, or they were just fortunate to have somethings come together when they did while actually hitting on about the same rate that other teams do. Yes, Thompson found a diamond in the rough with Williams, but he did it by experimenting with 234 other guys. Throw enough crap at the wall and eventually something will stick. Again, none of this means he's necessarily doing a bad job, though I think there's some validity to the "we're one free agent splash away from being something special here" criticism of the last few seasons, but don't go too far in the other direction and give him credit for moves that were a lot of luck or brute force searching as if he was walking down the street, saw a guy running to catch a cab, and said "That man's going to be a star!" He's doing a good job not putting a noose around the team with bloated contracts, and though some might claim that's only because he's taken 0 chances, that's really about all you can ask of a GM. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 01/25/2011 2:49:32 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 02:55:09 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Not to belabor the point, but why did Matt Millen suck at his job? I understand that there isn't some magical ferry dust that makes one guy make all the right moves, but some guys and some teams clearly have done better as a result of the draft than others. Some of it is luck, but some of it is the ability to take that risk and make that decision to trade up to take what you call a chance on a player that has a pretty good chance of being pretty good. When the push comes to shove, even if that is the case, I'll take Ted Thompson's luck over others, because his results have indeed been pretty good. But again, this isn't the point I'm trying to make. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 03:06:25 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Besides, if we are going to use a gambling analogy, craps is bad because craps is 100% luck. Texas Hold 'em is a game of chance, but you can definitely be "good" at it and it does require plenty of knowledge and skill. But still, craps makes it sound like picking names out of a hat would render the same results, and I don't buy that. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/25/2011 @ 03:10:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
It wasn't thompson that drafted the 180 defensive backs to try and stop Randy Moss. It was Mike Sherman. I don't think Thompson has had the reputation for that quite so much. The erie thing about this whole thing is that Thompson philosophy revolved around his "5 year plan". This is his fifth year as their GM. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 01/25/2011 3:17:49 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 03:20:25 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
They've cycled though plenty of post-Moss dbs. Millen sucked mostly because though the system was originally conceived to help the bad teams get out of the ditch, in practice it's the perfect system for keeping the crappy teams crappy. You have to pay complete unknowns 4 billion dollars, and if they blow, and you're that bad, as opposed to some team that just had an off year, then you have to do it again the next season. Look at how many must draft sure stud WR they had to draft before they found one that stuck. "Matt Millen" wasn't going out on some hunch, EVERYONE was rating them there. You either slam dunk that pick, or you're a terrible team with a terrible contract, and it's a downward spiral. Yes, Texas Holdem is fine, but when you get to the WSOP the relative difference between skill makes it largely a wash. There's skill, there's gamesmanship, bluffing, etc, but in the end you're still dealt what you're dealt, and your opponents are as well. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/25/2011 @ 03:27:55 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I don't think they've drafted any more DBs than any other team. But I'm done talking about the draft. I don't agree with you on the degree to which luck determines draft success. Regardless, Thompson good draft decisions have overshadowed his bad ones, and the body of other non-draft related decisions he's made is my point. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 01/25/2011 @ 03:28:27 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maybe, but that doesn't mean it would be a rational worry. Besides I never claimed all GMs are equal, just that you should judge their moves based on value, not outcome, because a large portion of outcome is happenstance. (Or, as Alex hinted at, has nothing to do with them.) Edit: I think it's fair to give Millen some benefit of the doubt as far as sometimes things can just snowball. I'm not saying he gets a pass, but it would hardly be fair to not take that into consideration. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 3:32:40 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/25/2011 @ 03:34:50 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| You have to consider outcome, at least equally to value; of course, this is assuming that the two aren't miles apart. If I pay $10 million a year for a running back that rushes for 1000 yards, I wouldu be upset. But if I find a running back for 3Million a year, and he does the same, then I'm excited. 3 million and a bust is still a bad value, even if it is less risk. Ryan Grant was a good pickup because he was a steal AND he produced good results. If he was just a cheap player that didn't amount to anything, it wouldn't be a good value or produce good results. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/25/2011 @ 03:54:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Often, a player's value is determined by his subsequent performance. If Brandon Jackson turned out to be the next Walter Payton, people would be saying "and he was a 2nd round draft pick". But he never rushed for more than 500 yards in a season, so as a 2nd rounder, he was a bust. Sure, that's I suppose where luck plays some part, but value only makes sense in some cases when outcome is considered. The two are sort of functions of each other. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 03:54:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
Well, no shit.  Of course outcome is a factor in value, otherwise value is meaningless. (I have a cricket playing center, but he only cost me a penny at the local pet store!) Taking into account only outcome is overly simplistic, because a guy could be a stud, if you took him in round one when the next highest pick would have been a high 4, then that was a crappy move from a GM perspective. If you pay a guy $10mil a season when the next closest bidder is $3, then that was a crappy move as a GM, and criticism is warranted, even if the player performs well.A big part of being GM is about taking data on talent you get from other people, and judging the market value of that talent, and parting with the least amount of whatever commodity you're dealing in (picks, money, players, etc) to get that player. So "got good players" is only part of that conversation. There's also room to criticize not doing enough, even if you agree with the moves he did make. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 01/25/2011 4:01:36 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 04:02:42 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Oh, well, you literally said this: Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:28:27 PM Besides I never claimed all GMs are equal, just that you should judge their moves based on value, not outcome, because a large portion of outcome is happenstance. Here's an analysis done by someone in January of 2010. Basically, he said the results of the 2010 season should be the tipping point in the final verdict of the success/failure of Ted Thompson. I think the results are in his favor. (although, in his analytical measurments, he gives no points to non-player personnel decisions like Dom Capers, which I think is a huge part of their success). (again, we got off on a tangent about the draft, so I know aren't saying that Thompson hasn't done a good job.) And again, if I bow to your "play with what your dealt" analogy, that's really part of my point. If Rodgers just fell in their lap, fine. But the decision to go with him and let Favre go I think should be to his credit. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 04:08:27 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well I didn't know you were going to interpret value as "We're fielding a pop warner team, but it only cost us $50 a game." rather than some sort of value = $/output relative to other teams type deal or I would have defined it, though you obviously knew that's what I could have meant, since you spelled it out, so I think like usual we're "arguing" just to argue cause we're bored. Ah, nutcan. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 04:16:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
No, that wasn't my intent this time. I was confused about you saying don't use outcome, not realizing that your intent was that outcome was contained within value, sort of like VALoutcomeUE. If that's what you meant, than we're sort of in agreement. edit: although I am bored. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 01/25/2011 4:21:15 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 01/25/2011 @ 04:21:01 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I think as usual we're arguing semantics and talking past each other. If I had to summarize my original niggling argument in one sentence it would mainly be this: You're saying "Look at the outcome naysayers, Thompson's plan worked", and I'm merely pointing out that while that could be true logic dictates all you can really say for certain is his plan didn't fail. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 01/25/2011 4:21:57 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 04:28:08 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
My summary would be this: Ted Thompson has made a lot of tough decisions, and ultimately the franchise is better off now than when he took over; he deserves more credit than many fans are willing to give and certainly should be looked upon favorably among Packer fans. (at least that was my original intent) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 01/25/2011 4:40:11 pm | ||
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 04:58:22 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:35:36 PM You say that a GM is awesome if he can talk a big free agent into town. That's under the assumption that that's the best move. Sometimes NOT going after a free agent is the best move. I followed that with mentioning avoiding killer contracts. I'm not talking about throwing tons of money at big name players just because you can, because Daniel Synder has proven how that tactic works. I'm talking about how they got Woodson talked in to coming to Green Bay even though that was initially one of the last places he wanted to sign. And as I've said overall I think Thompson is doing well, but was it last year or the year before where they started the season with a shaky offensive line and crap for backups? In that case his failure to shore up the roster with somebody, picks, undrafted rookies, or free agents, probably cost them the season. So his erring on the side of building from youth hasn't always worked. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 01/25/2011 @ 05:05:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Here is another article analyzing Ted Thompson's tenure as a Packer. Both articles I posted argue that 2010 will be the year that determines whether or not Thompson should be deemed a success or a failure. Again, I'd say he's passed the test. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/25/2011 @ 05:08:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Today @ 04:58:22 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:35:36 PM I followed that with mentioning avoiding killer contracts. I'm not talking about throwing tons of money at big name players just because you can, because Daniel Synder has proven how that tactic works. I'm talking about how they got Woodson talked in to coming to Green Bay even though that was initially one of the last places he wanted to sign. And as I've said overall I think Thompson is doing well, but was it last year or the year before where they started the season with a shaky offensive line and crap for backups? In that case his failure to shore up the roster with somebody, picks, undrafted rookies, or free agents, probably cost them the season. So his erring on the side of building from youth hasn't always worked. You say that a GM is awesome if he can talk a big free agent into town. That's under the assumption that that's the best move. Sometimes NOT going after a free agent is the best move. He definitely has some things to be critical of, but you aren't going to win a Super Bowl every year. The oline is a legitimate thing to criticize him about, although now it seems to be soldified for the most part. He built a team that reached the Super Bowl. Anyone that can't get on board and admit that he has been a good GM (let alone stop calling for his head) is kidding themselves. Unless you want to try and make the argument that they are in the Super Bowl in spite of him. That would make for a good laugh though. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 05:58:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I don't think it's the case, but I don't think that concept is laughable either. The fact that they didn't need to make a move at RB to make the Super Bowl doesn't mean adding a RB wouldn't have made them a better team, or that it wasn't a completely unnecessary risk to tempt fate. I think a person could look at this team and fairly reasonably say "See, we've had this same basic team for years now. Just like we've all been saying, the Packers were one or two key players away from being Superbowl caliber. Meanwhile he sat on his hands for years hoping to strike gold in the draft." Someone bemoaning the fact that the Packers just needed a little splash into the free agent market any year over the last few to get over the hump and be something special had their opinion confirmed just as much as any other. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 01/25/2011 6:01:04 pm | ||
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 01/25/2011 @ 06:42:34 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, I'd argue that they haven't had the same basic team for years now. I guess the offense hasn't had a ton of turnover, but the current defense is way different from 2008 especially (Raji, Matthews, Capers, Tramon, Shields, etc.) , and even fairly different from last year. And they have a new punter who, without looking up stats to back this up, seems like the best punter they've had since Hentrich. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 01/26/2011 @ 07:24:56 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:42:34 PM And they have a new punter who, without looking up stats to back this up, seems like the best punter they've had since Hentrich. Ron Wolf admits that one of his biggest mistakes as Packers GM was not resigning Craig Hentrich. Ever since the Packers let him go, they have been grasping at straws trying to find an adequate punter. And it's amazing what a difference a good punter can make. It might be hard to recognize what a good punter looks like, but I'll tell you from the Packers point of view it is really easy to recognize a bad punter. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 01/26/2011 @ 08:03:07 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Wall Street Journal calls the Packers the "greatest 6 loss team ever". That sounds like a horrible title, but whatever. Anyway, take this for what it's worth I guess. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/26/2011 @ 01:23:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| President Obama flew into Green Bay today to speak at a factory in Manitowoc. I saw Air Force One parked on the runway at the airport which is about a mile from where I work. Gov. Walker gave him a jersey signed by Charles Woodson addressed: "See you at the White House". |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 01/31/2011 @ 03:29:47 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Got my Super Bowl program today! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/31/2011 @ 09:41:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I can't bring myself to actually make a pick. We'll see if I follow through. I sort of am dumbfounded by Jeremy picking the Packers for the 2nd consecutive week in the playoffs. He must really think the Packers are going to win if his brain is overruling his heart. Although, I don't claim to assume a motive behind someone's picks. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 01/31/2011 9:43:02 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 01/31/2011 @ 10:51:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I figured this way I can't lose to Sarah. If I lose to Jon on the Packers losing the Superbowl, I won't exactly lose any sleep. If I win because the Packers win, it will be some tiny consolation. Plus they're going to win, because it would just figure. Though I also don't do much picking who I want to win, rather than who I think will win, because that would be silly. Even with the Vikings it's more that I feel bad when I pick against them than it is "picking who I want to win." |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 02/01/2011 @ 06:33:36 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I always figured the packers and vikings were the exception to the "pick who you think will actually win" rule. And understandably so. But maybe even that is a little balanced. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 02/01/2011 @ 02:54:12 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Happy Media Day, everybody! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/01/2011 @ 03:45:45 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Some interesting over/unders that should be counted: number of times James Harrison drills someone with a forearm to the back of the head number of times he gets flagged for it number of times he gets flagged for it and acts like he did nothing wrong Number of times Polamalu/Matthews get mentioned regarding their hair product deals Number of times Brett Favre's name is brought up Number of times the word "torch" is used Number of times Jeremy tweets that the refs are hosing the Steelers Number of times the 2009 meeting between these two teams is talked about Number of times the onside kick with 4 minutes left and the lead by the steelers in that game is mentioned throughout the course of the game Number of times Rodgers dives head first when he should have gone feet first Number of times Terry Bradshaw's name is brought up I'll think of more later. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/01/2011 @ 08:31:01 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Bob McGinn talking about the Packers future. According to Sports Illustrated's Peter King, "If Bob McGinn's high on the future of these Packers, then we all should be." |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 02/01/2011 8:32:38 pm | ||
 | Sarah - So's your face 02/03/2011 @ 05:25:20 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Sunday cannot get here fast enough. Interesting tidbit: in the last 20 years, 14 of the 16 NFC teams have made it to the Super Bowl. Ah parity. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| RUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet. 02/03/2011 @ 07:28:38 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:25:20 AM Sunday cannot get here fast enough. Interesting tidbit: in the last 20 years, 14 of the 16 NFC teams have made it to the Super Bowl. Ah parity. Will be 15/16 in 21 years when the Lions make it next year :P |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| RUFiO1984 - Two raw eggs in the morning 02/03/2011 @ 08:14:20 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Probably already brought up a long time ago, but I always thought the "G" on Green Bay's helmet stood for "Green Bay", but apparently it stands for "Greatness"?! http://www.faqalert.com/green-bay-packers-logo-stand-for/ http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nfl;_ylt=AsaRanDJC9Dp2ilxC83idHVDubYF#nfl/24044113 |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| RUFiO1984 edited this at 02/03/2011 8:14:49 am | ||
|
| Sarah - 4605 Posts 02/03/2011 @ 07:01:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 08:14:20 AM Probably already brought up a long time ago, but I always thought the "G" on Green Bay's helmet stood for "Green Bay", but apparently it stands for "Greatness"?! http://www.faqalert.com/green-bay-packers-logo-stand-for/ http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nfl;_ylt=AsaRanDJC9Dp2ilxC83idHVDubYF#nfl/24044113 Saw this yesterday, did not know that. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/03/2011 @ 07:52:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I have a "legends of lambeau field" dvd that I learned that from. Only grambling and georgia have rights to use that design, apparently. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jon - infinity + 1 posts 02/03/2011 @ 10:20:26 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:52:52 PM I have a "legends of lambeau field" dvd that I learned that from. Only grambling and georgia have rights to use that design, apparently. I have a "leaders of lambeau field" dvd. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 02/04/2011 @ 02:01:22 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
By the way, can we discuss something? Let's talk about Aaron Rodgers. Specifically the celebration he does. I've seen something on tv about it and read a thing on the internet, and I get the impression that people think it's his own little deal. Well, it's not. For one thing, some people seem unaware that wrestlers have been doing that since the days I watched, which was way back when it was called WWF and it was still cool to cheer for the "good" guys and boo the "bad" guys. Now, maybe that was obvious to you, but it's not to some people. The other thing that people don't seem to realize is that Rodgers doesn't even get credit for bringing it into real sports either. Or at least, he shouldn't get credit. Not by a long shot. In fact, the irony is that Packer fans love the move, despite it's football origins reaching back to one of their most painful moments. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Wait for it... |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 02/04/2011 @ 02:09:57 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Keep your eyes trained on number 84 in green. You might recognize him. He was famous for about a month. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/04/2011 @ 05:19:28 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I guess I shouldn't respond to the bait, but oh well here's my 2 cents: I don't like his celebration just because every time I see it I don't think "Yay, Packers scored" but "Damn you Freddie Mitchell." But I suppose he's not doing it to intentionally spite his fans, so I'll try to get over it. Big day on Sunday... It's almost finally here! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 02/04/2011 @ 09:18:05 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:14:20 AM Probably already brought up a long time ago, but I always thought the "G" on Green Bay's helmet stood for "Green Bay", but apparently it stands for "Greatness"?! http://www.faqalert.com/green-bay-packers-logo-stand-for/ http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nfl;_ylt=AsaRanDJC9Dp2ilxC83idHVDubYF#nfl/24044113 Except that if the Packers didn't play in the town of Green Bay, the "G" logo never would have been designed/approved for the team. Therefore, I would argue, the implicit meaning of the "G" logo is indeed for Green Bay, and the whole greatness explanation is just public relations BS. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 02/04/2011 @ 10:29:42 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| No kidding. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/04/2011 @ 07:20:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Matt Wrote - Today @ 09:18:05 AM RUFiO1984 Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:14:20 AM Probably already brought up a long time ago, but I always thought the "G" on Green Bay's helmet stood for "Green Bay", but apparently it stands for "Greatness"?! http://www.faqalert.com/green-bay-packers-logo-stand-for/ http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nfl;_ylt=AsaRanDJC9Dp2ilxC83idHVDubYF#nfl/24044113 Except that if the Packers didn't play in the town of Green Bay, the "G" logo never would have been designed/approved for the team. Therefore, I would argue, the implicit meaning of the "G" logo is indeed for Green Bay, and the whole greatness explanation is just public relations BS. It can serve dual purpose. Just because it makes viking fans puke doesn't make it BS. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/04/2011 @ 07:23:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - Today @ 02:01:22 AM By the way, can we discuss something? Let's talk about Aaron Rodgers. Specifically the celebration he does. I've seen something on tv about it and read a thing on the internet, and I get the impression that people think it's his own little deal. Well, it's not. For one thing, some people seem unaware that wrestlers have been doing that since the days I watched, which was way back when it was called WWF and it was still cool to cheer for the "good" guys and boo the "bad" guys. Now, maybe that was obvious to you, but it's not to some people. The other thing that people don't seem to realize is that Rodgers doesn't even get credit for bringing it into real sports either. Or at least, he shouldn't get credit. Not by a long shot. In fact, the irony is that Packer fans love the move, despite it's football origins reaching back to one of their most painful moments. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Wait for it... He also does the mike tyson's punch out jump and fist pump. It's him hopping up on one foot with the other knee bent up, and one fist going up in the air. Personally, I think that one is cooler, because that one is from some old school Nintendo video game. Also, does it matter that he didn't originate it? Maybe he just thinks it's cool. I think he started it as a joke in practice, and it sounds like it just took off a bit. He is the first one I can remember to make it part of his regular celebration move, or at least the highest profile player to do so. On another note, how did you find out that the eagles receiver did the title belt move after the 4th and 26? Do you watch that video on a regular basis just to feel good? Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:19:28 AM I guess I shouldn't respond to the bait, but oh well here's my 2 cents: I don't like his celebration just because every time I see it I don't think "Yay, Packers scored" but "Damn you Freddie Mitchell." But I suppose he's not doing it to intentionally spite his fans, so I'll try to get over it. Big day on Sunday... It's almost finally here! I can pretty much guarantee you that Rodgers has no idea about this correlation. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 4 times, last at 02/04/2011 7:30:36 pm | ||
|
| Jon - 1 bajillion posts 02/04/2011 @ 08:43:09 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:44 PM Also, does it matter that he didn't originate it? Maybe he just thinks it's cool. I think he started it as a joke in practice, and it sounds like it just took off a bit. He is the first one I can remember to make it part of his regular celebration move, or at least the highest profile player to do so. No it doesn't matter that he didn't originate it. Athletes are generally very unoriginal. Almost across the board. Though I guess that's probably true for all of us. He's basically getting credit for it though, so it's fair to point out that someone did it in the NFL before he was even in the league. Also, I understand the practice origins and everything, and that it was something he did for his fellow players. But then why does he make a point to direct it at the opposing fans? Seems like a jerk move. If it's for your boys, then direct it at your boys. At this point it seems almost like it's just a less offensive "crotch chop." Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:44 PM On another note, how did you find out that the eagles receiver did the title belt move after the 4th and 26? Do you watch that video on a regular basis just to feel good? I just remember it. It was actually a move I had joked around about in reference to when wrestlers did it, so when Mitchell did it, it made an impact. Also, for those who care, from a couple things I read, it sounds like it was a move that Freddie Mitchell did throughout the season that year. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jon screwed with this 3 times, last at 02/04/2011 8:44:44 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 02/04/2011 @ 08:59:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:20:24 PM Matt Wrote - Today @ 09:18:05 AM RUFiO1984 Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:14:20 AM Probably already brought up a long time ago, but I always thought the "G" on Green Bay's helmet stood for "Green Bay", but apparently it stands for "Greatness"?! http://www.faqalert.com/green-bay-packers-logo-stand-for/ http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nfl;_ylt=AsaRanDJC9Dp2ilxC83idHVDubYF#nfl/24044113 Except that if the Packers didn't play in the town of Green Bay, the "G" logo never would have been designed/approved for the team. Therefore, I would argue, the implicit meaning of the "G" logo is indeed for Green Bay, and the whole greatness explanation is just public relations BS. It can serve dual purpose. Just because it makes viking fans puke doesn't make it BS. It's BS cause it's BS, not cause "we don't like it". It stands for Green Bay, regardless of what some dudes decided it would stand for, after making it, at which point they apparently also decided not to tell anyone about. If they were the Appleton Packers, they wouldn't have a G on their helmet. Yes, logo's have dual meanings all the time, arbitrarily deciding "The G that we only have because we're the Green Bay Packers stands for ____" doesn't count. The Brewers had one of the best dual meaning logos of all time. Our preference doesn't change anything. Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:44 PM On another note, how did you find out that the eagles receiver did the title belt move after the 4th and 26? Do you watch that video on a regular basis just to feel good? How do you NOT remember that? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 02/04/2011 @ 09:04:31 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - Today @ 08:43:09 PM Also, I understand the practice origins and everything, and that it was something he did for his fellow players. But then why does he make a point to direct it at the opposing fans? Seems like a jerk move. If it's for your boys, then direct it at your boys. At this point it seems almost like it's just a less offensive "crotch chop." Maybe it seems like a jerk move because he's a cocky jerk. One of these times he's going to do his cocky belt thing or his mincing/prancing move and get decked. Peyton Manning turns over in his grave everytime he does it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/04/2011 9:07:06 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/05/2011 @ 06:15:49 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Kill joys , every one of you. It stands for greatness, and the packers play in ashwaubenon, so they had to change their city name to green bay to coincide. I don't think he "didn't tell anyone". Just because a bunch of Packer fans didn't know about it means nothing. I've learned over the last few years that Packer fans, while clearly being the most loyal in sports, are also some of the less intelligent fan bases in the league, if for no other reason than their sheer size makes for all the more people that just watch the games. Also, they went 30 years with out any logo at all, so when their equipment manager designed one in 1961, they had a legacy of Greatness already built in. Plus, they went 5 NFL championships in the next few years, so it was accurate anyway. Rodgers is as cool as the otherside of the pillow. The old adage goes, if you don't want him doing the belt, then keep him out of the endzone. Anyway, he toned down his belt celebration against the bears, simply pointing to his belt after his td. Super bowl!!!!! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 02/05/2011 6:29:38 am | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 02/05/2011 @ 06:32:10 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:59:21 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:23:44 PM On another note, how did you find out that the eagles receiver did the title belt move after the 4th and 26? Do you watch that video on a regular basis just to feel good? How do you NOT remember that? Somethings tend to get burned from your memory. Like the 1996, I can remember every game. 1997, I don't remember hardly anything about it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Micah - 584 Posts 02/05/2011 @ 10:31:10 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:04:31 PM Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:43:09 PM Also, I understand the practice origins and everything, and that it was something he did for his fellow players. But then why does he make a point to direct it at the opposing fans? Seems like a jerk move. If it's for your boys, then direct it at your boys. At this point it seems almost like it's just a less offensive "crotch chop." Maybe it seems like a jerk move because he's a cocky jerk. One of these times he's going to do his cocky belt thing or his mincing/prancing move and get decked. Peyton Manning turns over in his grave everytime he does it. Peyton Manning died? Was it during an oreo eating contest? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/05/2011 @ 11:47:15 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Micah Wrote - Today @ 10:31:10 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:04:31 PM Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:43:09 PM Also, I understand the practice origins and everything, and that it was something he did for his fellow players. But then why does he make a point to direct it at the opposing fans? Seems like a jerk move. If it's for your boys, then direct it at your boys. At this point it seems almost like it's just a less offensive "crotch chop." Maybe it seems like a jerk move because he's a cocky jerk. One of these times he's going to do his cocky belt thing or his mincing/prancing move and get decked. Peyton Manning turns over in his grave everytime he does it. Peyton Manning died? Was it during an oreo eating contest? He choked on septuple stuffed. They really should have tested it on someone else. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/05/2011 @ 11:54:43 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:15:49 AM Kill joys , every one of you. It stands for greatness, and the packers play in ashwaubenon, so they had to change their city name to green bay to coincide. I don't think he "didn't tell anyone". Just because a bunch of Packer fans didn't know about it means nothing. I've learned over the last few years that Packer fans, while clearly being the most loyal in sports, are also some of the less intelligent fan bases in the league, if for no other reason than their sheer size makes for all the more people that just watch the games. Also, they went 30 years with out any logo at all, so when their equipment manager designed one in 1961, they had a legacy of Greatness already built in. Plus, they went 5 NFL championships in the next few years, so it was accurate anyway. Rodgers is as cool as the otherside of the pillow. The old adage goes, if you don't want him doing the belt, then keep him out of the endzone. Anyway, he toned down his belt celebration against the bears, simply pointing to his belt after his td. Super bowl!!!!! No one is arguing it's BS because it is or isn't apt. It's just totally made up, after the fact, and irrelevant. Put it this way. Lets say the Browns had a "B" logo designed, and the guy that eventually designed it at whatever firm hated them. Then, he started telling people, "I can't believe they fell for it! The 'B' doesn't even mean 'Browns' it means 'Bad at football!!!' What a bunch of suckers! They put that logo on everything too!!!! Hahahahaha!!" It doesn't matter what the designer claims it stands for if it only got designed, accepted, and used, because of the obvious. You can claim anything you want, it implicitly stands for Green Bay. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 02/05/2011 12:29:07 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/05/2011 @ 12:11:41 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
 Something along these lines would have dual meaning. (Although people might wonder what "Creatness" means) As it stands it means "Greatness" about as much as it means "Grandpa". |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 02/05/2011 12:16:01 pm | ||
|
| Sarah - So's your face 02/06/2011 @ 09:09:04 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Let's get it started! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3375 Posts 02/06/2011 @ 04:09:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:15:49 AM Rodgers is as cool as the otherside of the pillow. The old adage goes, if you don't want him doing the belt, then keep him out of the endzone. While I have used that adage, or a form of it, in the past, it's completely ridiculous. That's a solution to avoid seeing the behavior, not a justification for it. But, as they say, even when there's darkness one size fits all. (Also, I've heard the argument made that "old adage" is redundant. A fair-ish point, but I've found it's difficult to not say "old" when actually pointing out that you're quoting one.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jon edited this at 02/06/2011 4:10:11 pm | ||
|
| Jon - infinity + 1 posts 02/06/2011 @ 04:22:14 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 02/07/2010 @ 01:44:22 AM Jon Wrote - 01/31/2009 @ 05:01:47 PM http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3874838 Here's something I'd like to negative nut. Cris Carter STILL not inducted into the HOF. Granted, before I complain too much, Randall McDaniel did deservedly get in. But how can Cris Carter not be put in right away? I heard today that the reason he wasn't put in last year was likely because no WR ever has gotten in on the first time and they are waiting to put Rice in there on his first ballot. So that solved that mystery. But why not now? Football's whole process is pretty bogus anyway. Not to mention, they've shown over and over again that it's better to be famous than good. Better to be part of one or two championship teams than put up ridiculous stats your entire career. In fact, they've almost shown a complete disdain for any numerical representation of someone's performance. Cris Carter retired as statistically the best receiver EVER that isn't named Jerry Rice. And even if people had taken the time to watch 10% of the games he played in, they'd know it wasn't even the statistics that made him so good. He was just unbelievably talented and productive. He made his teams better. Did no one notice that Minnesota made the playoffs virtually every year while he was there? And he was basically the anchor of the offense. You know how many quarterbacks came through Minnesota in those years? 583. Look it up. He was consistently good year after year in a consistently changing situation. Look, guys like Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison are obviously good. You can't argue that. But you know what? They had Montana, Young, and Manning throwing to them for virtually their entire career. Carter had some good passers, but they changed every year, and often in the middle of the year. Rich Gannon, Wade Wilson, Sean Salisbury, Jim McMahon, Warren Moon, Brad Johnson, Randall Cunningham, Jeff George, Daunte Culpepper, plus Spergeon Wynn and Todd Bouman. Those are the starters. That's 1991-2001. Sure a few of those guys are pretty talented, but can you imagine changing quarterbacks that many times and still being as good as anyone in the game? Put it this way. He led the entire NFL in TD receptions three different years. 1995, 1997, 1999. Each of those seasons, with just a year between each, had a different qb as the predominant starter in Minnesota. Warren Moon, Brad Johnson, Jeff George -- didn't matter. Cris Carter found a way to catch more tds than anyone each time. And he did it with as good a set of hands that have ever caught a football, and with ridiculous body control. Yeah, he'll be in the Hall some day. But some day should have been last year, or certainly this year. The Pro Football Hall of Fame should be embarrassed by the consistently poor job they do at electing players. The above is a quote from a year ago on our SB thread. In case you missed it, Cris Carter was not elected to the Hall of Fame this year either. If you want to know how ridiculous this is, please read what I wrote last year. Also, I will add to the argument a bit. Michael Irvin was elected to the HOF in his third year of eligibility. Cris Carter was just denied election in his third year. Cris Carter has 351 MORE receptions than Irvin for his career. In touchdowns, Irving had 65TDs for his career. Carter had 130!! That's right, Carter caught TWICE as many touchdowns as Irvin ever did. Carter was also a 1st team all-pro twice. Irvin once. Carter was a pro bowler 8 years, Irvin 5. So, basically, to sum it up, the Pro Football Hall of Fame election process still has no credibility at all. No credibility. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 02/06/2011 @ 09:07:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Take that you bastard injuries! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 4605 Posts 02/06/2011 @ 09:14:47 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| WORLD CHAMPIONS |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 02/06/2011 @ 09:15:19 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
Congrats. You should consider yourselves lucky to root for a team that doesn't invent ways to rip your heart out. Then again, that's what makes us better fans.  I can only assume the Twins season will be a spectacular failure, headlined by Jim Thome batting about .050, culminating in Target Field getting hit by a tornado, and the White Sox and Brewers meeting in the world series. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/06/2011 @ 09:17:38 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Also, now my least favorite part of Packer success will continue all offseason. Getting shit from no-nothing-about-football morons who bought a packer shirt this week and only watched one Packer game this year, because there was nothing else on that day, whose favorite player is "Rodger Something, the quarterback" |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 02/06/2011 9:18:59 pm | ||
 | Sarah - So's your face 02/06/2011 @ 09:23:33 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:15:19 PM Congrats. You should consider yourselves lucky to root for a team that doesn't invent ways to rip your heart out. Then again, that's what makes us better fans. I can only assume the Twins season will be a spectacular failure, headlined by Jim Thome batting about .050, culminating in Target Field getting hit by a tornado, and the White Sox and Brewers meeting in the world series. I root for the Twins and they'll be winners. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:17:38 PM Also, now my least favorite part of Packer success will continue all offseason. Getting shit from no-nothing-about-football morons who bought a packer shirt this week and only watched one Packer game this year, because there was nothing else on that day, whose favorite player is "Rodger Something, the quarterback" I love my life... |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 02/06/2011 @ 09:33:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:23:33 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:17:38 PM Also, now my least favorite part of Packer success will continue all offseason. Getting shit from no-nothing-about-football morons who bought a packer shirt this week and only watched one Packer game this year, because there was nothing else on that day, whose favorite player is "Rodger Something, the quarterback" I love my life... You mean you're also going to have random people you've never said one word to rubbing your nose in it for no reason? Seems odd. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/07/2011 @ 07:23:20 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 02/05/2011 @ 11:54:43 AM No one is arguing it's BS because it is or isn't apt. It's just totally made up, after the fact, and irrelevant. How do you know it was totally made up after the fact? I highly doubt you know that.* The Packers did have a logo before the current G, but had nothing on their helmet. They had a sort of intertwined GB similar to say the NY of the Yankees and Mets. Knowing what I do about Vince Lombardi, and since he was the coach and GM at the time they put the G on the helmet, he very well could have initiated an attempt for a logo that doesn't just symoblize who the team is, but rather a logo for what the team should stand for. I don't know any of this either, but considering a few facts (and not just bitter resentment), it is possible that the original intention was to create a logo that meant something other than just "Green Bay" or "Packers", and the fact that they happened play in a town that shared the first letter of a good word was just a convenient way to make it be "greatness". Also, I think this is relevant (although I'm sure it's probably not) is that the Packers are the only team in the major sports who's two name city is represented by just one letter. The Yankees, and Mets, the New York Giants, the San Francisco Giants, the Tampa Bay Rays are all teams that have two word locations that use the location as their logo. All of them use both letters. If the primary intention was indeed for the Packers to design a logo that meant "Green Bay" only, they wouldn't have just used a G! That would have been stupid. Other thoughts: Aaron Rodgers seemed to bypass the title belt celebration during the game. And I don't know if it was planned or what, but it was Matthews that put the belt on Rodgers shoulder last night after the game. Rodgers has said that the title belt thing was never meant to be a big deal, so maybe since it was being made a big deal of, he left it out of his routine. Turnovers are part of the game. The Packers straight up caused two of those turnovers. The first int and the fumble were simply takeaways. Howard Green hit Big Ben causing a bad throw and Matthews just lit up Mendenhall causing that fumble. Even the 2nd packers int was a pretty good play by Bush. In other words, I've heard a lot about how the Steelers "gave away" the game or whatever. The Packers took those balls away with force. The Packers did not turn the ball over, the Steelers were unable to force any turnovers, and the Packers defense made the big plays. Saying that the Steelers "gave away" the game because of some turnovers completely discounts the fact that the Packers defense came to play and made some huge plays. Aaron Rodgers played a near flawless game. His receiving corps did not. Jordy Nelson flat out dropped three absolutely crushing passes. James Jones crushed an almost sure touchdown, and I think there was one more by someone. Other than that, Rodgers played about as well as you could have asked someone to play. *You can't email the green bay Packers, but you can mail them letters. I think I might mail a letter to see what kind of answer I can get to the question. Because I had heard this straight from the Green Bay Packers (via this DVD released in 2003), so I don't think Tiki Barber was just making it up. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott edited this 6 times, last at 02/07/2011 8:15:23 am | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/07/2011 @ 07:38:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:09:40 PM Scott Wrote - 02/05/2011 @ 06:15:49 AM While I have used that adage, or a form of it, in the past, it's completely ridiculous. That's a solution to avoid seeing the behavior, not a justification for it. But, as they say, even when there's darkness one size fits all. (Also, I've heard the argument made that "old adage" is redundant. A fair-ish point, but I've found it's difficult to not say "old" when actually pointing out that you're quoting one.)Rodgers is as cool as the otherside of the pillow. The old adage goes, if you don't want him doing the belt, then keep him out of the endzone. For the record, I don't like that adage either. I just never saw his title belt celebration as being that much of a jerk type move. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/07/2011 @ 08:01:36 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rachel Maddow gives her take on G-gate. What is reassuring, however, is that looking at the history of the "Logos and uniforms of the Green Bay Packers" Packerpedia page, it appears that the helmet G detail has been part of their record since August 15, 2010, which also appears to be the beginning of that page, and is at least a signficant amount of time before Tiki said so. Less formally, there are message boards that mention that G is for greatness farther back than that. So even a skeptic who wants to argue that "greatness" was not the original meaning of the G has to at least admit that the greatness association is established team lore. Worry not, NutCanners, I'll get to the bottom of this. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 02/07/2011 8:02:18 am | ||
 | Micah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons 02/07/2011 @ 08:36:51 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Congrats to all the Packer fans. I was actually rooting for the Packers in the playoffs this year once I realized that Drew Bledsoe wasn't playing QB for the Patriots anymore, and was glad to see them win. 10 days to Pitchers and Catchers!!! |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Micah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons 02/07/2011 @ 08:41:53 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
Interesting side note....I had this poster back in middle school and its interesting that Drew Bledsoe had so many options to kick your ass. 1-3) He can drop back for a pass 4-6) He can stare at the camera from multiple angles 7-8) He can watch himself do curls or presses 9) He can hand off to a running back 10) He can almost get sacked and make what had to have been a horrible throw The choices are endless... |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 02/07/2011 @ 10:39:29 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:20 AM Jeremy Wrote - 02/05/2011 @ 11:54:43 AM No one is arguing it's BS because it is or isn't apt. It's just totally made up, after the fact, and irrelevant. How do you know it was totally made up after the fact? I highly doubt you know that.* Is that the important part? It doesn't matter when it was made up, or WHO made it up. It's. made. up. I'd feel the exact same way if the Vikings claimed their V logo stood for "Valor." It wouldn't matter if it was the intention of the designer from the second he started that it would really mean "Valor". If it only got requested, used, desired, adopted, liked, etc because it was "also" "V" for Vikings then that is ALL that matters. That IS what it means then. He can tell people it really means "Valor" all he wanted. It wouldn't make any difference. Did you not get my Browns example? Put it another way, if he would have come back with an "S" for strength, do you think the Packers would have a "S" on their helmet? They would have said "what the crap does 'S' have to do with anything?" |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 02/07/2011 11:26:35 am | ||
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 02/07/2011 @ 11:56:19 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:39:29 AM Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:23:20 AM Is that the important part? It doesn't matter when it was made up, or WHO made it up. It's. made. up. I'd feel the exact same way if the Vikings claimed their V logo stood for "Valor." It wouldn't matter if it was the intention of the designer from the second he started that it would really mean "Valor". If it only got requested, used, desired, adopted, liked, etc because it was "also" "V" for Vikings then that is ALL that matters. That IS what it means then. He can tell people it really means "Valor" all he wanted. It wouldn't make any difference. Did you not get my Browns example? Put it another way, if he would have come back with an "S" for strength, do you think the Packers would have a "S" on their helmet? They would have said "what the crap does 'S' have to do with anything?"Jeremy Wrote - 02/05/2011 @ 11:54:43 AM How do you know it was totally made up after the fact? I highly doubt you know that.*No one is arguing it's BS because it is or isn't apt. It's just totally made up, after the fact, and irrelevant. It would matter if we found out that lombardi himself told the designer "I want a logo that stands for 'greatness'. I don't care how you do it, but do it." And then the designer comes back with a G, because a) greatness starts with a G, and b) green bay starts with a g. He could have created some sort of Buccaneer Bruce or the old Patriots type logo and had that be what stands for "greatness". But he chose a letter. If they played in appleton, maybe he would have choosen to use something other than a letter. I'm speculating (obviously), but if it came from lombardi, that would make the "it stands for greatness" much much more credible. That's all I'm pointing out. You are attempting to claim as some sort of fact that it was just made up. If they created the G and then a year later decided to call it "greatness" then yeah, it would be sort of lame. But if the intent to create a logo that stood for greatness and the designer used a letter instead of a cartoon, then it is a valid definition. So if he was looking for "greatness", his options were a)some form of a G, because it also stands for Green Bay, or b) some character that symbolizes greatness He chose the former. You're telling me there is nothing about that argument that makes any sense? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 02/07/2011 11:59:33 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 02/07/2011 @ 12:34:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
"Made up" doesn't mean it was around for a year and someone said "We should say it means 'Greatness'" It's made up in the sense that it's not the reason it was adopted, used, beloved, etc. If Green Bay is the only reason it was actually used, and 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people would assume it means Green Bay, with no extra meaning, than what some dude who made it says it means is totally irrelevant, because it DOESN'T mean that. It's superfluous, it's been superseded. Would it change your mind on how unimportant what it "meant to" the designer if he said "It actually doesn't mean 'Green Bay', it was an homage to my late father Gregory?" Would anyone say "we'll that has to go then, we should get a logo that has something to do with the team?" If an artist painted a picture of bunnies playing hopscotch and you put it in your kid's bedroom and then you found out the artist actually pained it as a reference to how the would played on carelessly during the Holocaust, or no doubt something about the proletariat and the ruling class, would that change the fact that the painting is actually just a harmless picture of bunnies playing? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 02/07/2011 12:58:23 pm | ||
|
| Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 02/07/2011 @ 12:42:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Other than the option play on the 2 point conversion, the Steelers didn't run the ball after the fumble. Which would be interesting but they only had the one drive that they scored a TD on other than the under 2 minute drive. So never mind that I guess. How about the Steelers using 2 timeouts in the 3rd quarter? That's never a good idea. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/07/2011 @ 12:52:57 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well, they must have realized Clay Matthews changed into his his "ball stripping" shoulder pads and decided to start lighting people up, instead of hitting like a pussy, like everyone, including him apparently, had been up until that point. Makes you wonder what he had been doing up until that point, really. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 02/07/2011 @ 03:22:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I was NutCan's correspondent at Lambeau to welcome the team back into town. I drove over to Lambeau on my lunch break just as the team busses were arriving from the air port. Most of the busses were buttoned down pretty good, but Donald Driver was hanging out the window and if I had thought fast enough, I could have jumped out and given him a high five. It was pretty sweet. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 02/07/2011 @ 03:28:09 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:34:58 PM "Made up" doesn't mean it was around for a year and someone said "We should say it means 'Greatness'" It's made up in the sense that it's not the reason it was adopted, used, beloved, etc. If Green Bay is the only reason it was actually used, and 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people would assume it means Green Bay, with no extra meaning, than what some dude who made it says it means is totally irrelevant, because it DOESN'T mean that. It's superfluous, it's been superseded. Would it change your mind on how unimportant what it "meant to" the designer if he said "It actually doesn't mean 'Green Bay', it was an homage to my late father Gregory?" Would anyone say "we'll that has to go then, we should get a logo that has something to do with the team?" If an artist painted a picture of bunnies playing hopscotch and you put it in your kid's bedroom and then you found out the artist actually pained it as a reference to how the would played on carelessly during the Holocaust, or no doubt something about the proletariat and the ruling class, would that change the fact that the painting is actually just a harmless picture of bunnies playing? Not that it matters, but I don't remember saying that it means greatness because the guy that designed it says it does. I said it means greatness because Vince Lombardi wanted a logo designed that meant greatness. If my Lombardi hypothesis turns out to be true, then it totally makes the meaning relevant. You are right, if the artist just decided that it meant that, then you are right. I won't dispute that. However, I haven't been making that argument.. I'm arguing the possibility that Lombardi wanted something to stand for greatness. Why did they just use the G then? What happened to the B? Every other two word city team uses both letters. Think about that one. Besides, logos have names all the time. And teams have mascots. Maybe the "name" of the Packer G is actually "Greatness" the same way that the creamsicle pirate was named "Bruce" for the Buccaneers. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this 2 times, last at 02/07/2011 3:30:59 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 02/07/2011 @ 03:41:38 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Why do you take every hypothetical so literally? The designer (who would just be Lombardi in your example anyway), Lombardi, or Jesus, it doesn't become more relevant. If one meaning is totally obvious and is the actually the reason it's used, and the other meaning has to be explained by an external source, then it doesn't actually "mean" that second thing, cause that second thing could be almost anything. What he may have wanted, and what he got were two different things. The fact that any deeper meaning was to be completely lost, and completely irrelevant, just makes it a shitty logo then. If I draw a line and then tell you it stands for this and that, it's still just a line that doesn't actually imply any of that on its own. If the logo were named "Greatness" that would be totally different than standing for Greatness. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 02/07/2011 3:48:17 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/07/2011 @ 03:50:35 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, Lombardi sort of carries a little more weight than some equipment manager who designed it (probably a little less weight than Jesus I suppose). If Vince wanted it ot stand for greatness, then it stands for greatness. If Vince Lombardi put wanted to put an S for strength on the helmet, and then went on to win 7 championships in 9 years or whatever it is, then it would be looked at as "he's the greatest coach ever, so he can do whatever he wants and we'll love him for it'. I think it certainly does become more relevant depending on who originated it. That's the point we disagree on. Is the intent and who intended it relevant to this issue. You say no, I say yes. I'll mail the Packers a letter and ask for their input. Then we can both sleep better. Although from the sounds of your argument, even if I get a letter from the Packers saying that Vince freaking Lombardi wanted the logo to stand for greatness, it wouldn't matter to you since you don't think that's relevant. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 02/07/2011 3:52:38 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 02/07/2011 @ 04:01:46 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
If they had an random letter like 'S' on their helmet an alternate meaning would be obvious, and no one would argue with what it represented if the origin was known, even if it was mailed to the Packers by a 5 year old with the note "Packers are strong." Just a "G" on the other hand tacitly means Green Bay, regardless of who drew it, or asked for it. Edit: And to be fair, if you do write that letter, I don't think I "win" the argument, even it it was just the brain child of some peon. I don't think the origin matters one iota in this case. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this at 02/07/2011 4:06:43 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 02/07/2011 @ 04:06:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| answer my other question, why didn't they use the B for Bay? G just stands for Green. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 02/07/2011 @ 04:13:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Because the G is cleaner? Because they're morons? Who cares? You've been a Packer fan for 1/4 of a century and you, and 99.9999999999% of Packer nation had to be told a week ago a logo you've seen 2.323x10^70000000000 times doesn't, in fact, stand for the blatantly obvious. If there was meant to be a hidden meaning, then they failed spectacularly. Either they're morons, we're all blind and stupid, or their superfluous meaning for it is nothing more than a silly piece of trivia. Edit: Just in case this hasn't been clear, I don't think anyone is arguing that it is/isn't true that's what was requested, just that it's irrelevant if it were. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 02/07/2011 4:18:05 pm | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 02/07/2011 @ 04:23:41 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well, I learned about it 8 years ago, and it was on wikipedia long before Tiki Barber said it (not that Wikipedia is the end all of authoritative sources). And, even if it is a silly piece of trivia, that doesn't make it untrue. Most Packer fans don't do the research that I do on these things, so it can still mean that and not be commonly known public knowledge, just like I would guess that 80% of Packer fans don't know that Lambeau field was once called City Stadium. edit: I'm arguing that it is relevant. Of course I'm also completely making the scenario about Lombardi actually requesting it. But it's for the sake of argument. For all we know they could have uncovered some lost parchment in 1998 with "reatness" written on it, and it fit exactly next to a parchment found earlier with a G and ripped edges that match the ripped edges of "reatness". |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 02/07/2011 4:36:59 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/08/2011 @ 04:39:41 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| They named a street after McCarthy. They should rename a one-way street Ted Thompson Way. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 4605 Posts 02/08/2011 @ 08:06:12 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Close race between the senior staffers for the year (Matt excluded). But Trampas clearly had a source to get to the record he got to. Kudos! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | PackOne - There's music to play. Places to go. People to see. 02/13/2011 @ 10:12:11 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I totally dropped the ball for the last third of a season on nutcan. What a run by the Packers. The Superbowl was cool, even though Jeremy had to tweet negativity during the entire game. If anyone is interested, here is the photo gallery from the week, and I also shot a lot of handheld video when I was walking around. Time for nutcan brackets. Photos: http://cheeseheadtv.com/gallery/index.php/superbowl_xlv 8-10 other things from Dallas. http://cheeseheadtv.com/lounge/tag/superbowl |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 02/14/2011 @ 09:58:16 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
PackOne Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:12:11 AM I totally dropped the ball for the last third of a season on nutcan. For the 2nd straight year, I deliberately skipped a week of picks (this year was the Super Bowl, last year was the Divisional Round), and both years it cost me a chance of besting or at least tying any of the senior NutCan staffers. Had I made my super Bowl pick I would have bested all the Senior Staffers, which, let's face it, should be everyone's goal each year. As it stands, I won't cry foul, since I made the conscious decision to hold out, knowing that my pick would have put me over the top. In other news, Bob McGinn published his yearly grades: Individual Defense Individual Offense Team Grades There's no surprise that a team that won the Super Bowl got high grades from a Packer writer. I do trust McGinn more than any other packer writer though. He is nationally respected and doesn't mess around. Anyway, enjoy what you will. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 02/14/2011 12:48:16 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 02/14/2011 @ 12:50:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:58:16 AM In other news, Bob McGinn published his yearly grades: Individual Defense Individual Offense Team Grades There's no surprise that a team that won the Super Bowl got high grades from a Packer writer. I do trust McGinn more than any other packer writer though. He is nationally respected and doesn't mess around. Anyway, enjoy what you will. I just realized that these links are probably Insider sites that require an account. Well, I'll put it this way, Rodgers got an A, AJ Hawk got a B-, Ted Thompson got an A, and Josh Sitton got an A-. Any further insite requested I can post later. McGinn gives a fairly good explanation of each of his player grades as well. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 02/14/2011 12:51:47 pm | ||
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....
Packers 21 @ Bears 14
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
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.