NFL 2010 Season Week 5 Picks

Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

These are not our most current picks!
Our freshest batch of picks are the NFL 2018 Season Super Bowl Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Jaguars 36 @ Bills 26
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
17 Picks - 81% 4 Picks - 19%
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Jaguars
Giants 34 @ Texans 10
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
2 Picks - 10% 19 Picks - 90%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Broncos 17 @ Ravens 31
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 21 Picks - 100%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Bears 23 @ Panthers 6
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
15 Picks - 71% 6 Picks - 29%
Bears
Bears
Bears
Bears
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Packers 13 @ Redskins 16
final overtime
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
18 Picks - 86% 3 Picks - 14%
Packers
Packers
Redskins
Redskins
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Chiefs 9 @ Colts 19
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
2 Picks - 10% 19 Picks - 90%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Rams 6 @ Lions 44
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
8 Picks - 38% 13 Picks - 62%
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Falcons 20 @ Browns 10
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
18 Picks - 86% 3 Picks - 14%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Browns
Browns
Buccaneers 24 @ Bengals 21
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 12:00pm
2 Picks - 10% 19 Picks - 90%
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Saints 20 @ Cardinals 30
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 3:05pm
21 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Chargers 27 @ Raiders 35
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 3:15pm
22 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Chargers
Titans 34 @ Cowboys 27
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 3:15pm
5 Picks - 23% 17 Picks - 77%
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Titans
Titans
Eagles 27 @ 49ers 24
Final
Sun, 10/10/10 7:20pm
12 Picks - 55% 10 Picks - 45%
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
Eagles
49ers
49ers
Vikings 20 @ Jets 29
Final
Mon, 10/11/10 7:30pm
8 Picks - 36% 14 Picks - 64%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Jets
Jets
Week Record7 - 7
0.500
8 - 6
0.571
6 - 8
0.429
6 - 8
0.429
Season Record41 - 35
0.539
43 - 33
0.566
38 - 38
0.500
38 - 38
0.500
Scotttime Record711 - 432
0.622
699 - 444
0.612
707 - 436
0.619
714 - 429
0.625
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1388 - 822
0.628
1310 - 900
0.593
1377 - 833
0.623
1373 - 837
0.621
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Jets

Week:8 - 6
0.571
Season:42 - 34
0.553
Lifetime:723 - 416
0.635
2887.gif
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Buccaneers
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:47 - 29
0.618
Lifetime:707 - 434
0.620
goodlooking.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Panthers
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Vikings

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:39 - 36
0.520
Lifetime:677 - 445
0.603
image.jpeg
JAC @ BUF - No Pick
NYG @ HOU - No Pick
DEN @ BAL - No Pick
CHI @ CAR - No Pick
GB @ WAS - No Pick
KC @ IND - No Pick
LA @ DET - No Pick
ATL @ CLE - No Pick
TB @ CIN - No Pick
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Vikings

Week:1 - 4
0.200
Season:10 - 11
0.476
Lifetime:262 - 180
0.593
flower .jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:41 - 35
0.539
Lifetime:511 - 345
0.597
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Bills
Texans
Ravens
Panthers
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:5 - 9
0.357
Season:35 - 41
0.461
Lifetime:492 - 320
0.606
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
Bills
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Buccaneers
Cardinals
Chargers
Titans
Eagles
Vikings

Week:9 - 5
0.643
Season:46 - 30
0.605
Lifetime:399 - 230
0.634
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Chiefs
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Vikings

Week:5 - 9
0.357
Season:20 - 24
0.455
Lifetime:431 - 247
0.636
me.png
Jaguars
Giants
Ravens
Bears
Redskins
Chiefs
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Titans
Eagles
Jets

Week:10 - 4
0.714
Season:43 - 33
0.566
Lifetime:281 - 192
0.594
gove.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:13 - 15
0.464
Lifetime:205 - 119
0.633
picture07.bmp
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Titans
49ers
Jets

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:45 - 31
0.592
Lifetime:370 - 210
0.638
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Jets

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:41 - 35
0.539
Lifetime:213 - 129
0.623
question_mark.gif
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Panthers
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:5 - 9
0.357
Season:37 - 38
0.493
Lifetime:191 - 124
0.606
question_mark.gif
Bills
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Lions
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:41 - 34
0.547
Lifetime:199 - 103
0.659
Me at work.JPG
Jaguars
Giants
Ravens
Bears
Redskins
Colts
Lions
Browns
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Titans
49ers
Jets

Week:9 - 5
0.643
Season:41 - 35
0.539
Lifetime:89 - 73
0.549
Me at sams.jpg
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Panthers
Packers
Colts
Rams
Browns
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
49ers
Jets

Week:4 - 10
0.286
Season:31 - 37
0.456
Lifetime:31 - 37
0.456
question_mark.gif
Jaguars
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Vikings

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:41 - 35
0.539
Lifetime:41 - 35
0.539
hambone.jpg
Bills
Texans
Ravens
Bears
Packers
Colts
Rams
Falcons
Bengals
Saints
Chargers
Cowboys
Eagles
Jets

Week:6 - 8
0.429
Season:43 - 33
0.566
Lifetime:43 - 33
0.566
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Packers 13 @ Redskins 16

matt.jpg
Matt
I have no idea if the Skins are any good or not, but I'll still go with them.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
There have been some really bad played games this year. Include the Packers in that list.
jon.jpg
Jon
Green Bay, I guess.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
According to NFL sources Aaron Rodgers was able to cure a blind leper with his infectious smile early Tuesday morning.

Eagles 27 @ 49ers 24

matt.jpg
Matt
No one cares.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
Oooo a real barn burner!
jon.jpg
Jon
I hope I don't have to watch this.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Remember when the 49ers were the team to beat in that awful division?

Vikings 20 @ Jets 29

matt.jpg
Matt
The never should have gotten rid of Moss in the first place.

P.S. Red McCombs sucks.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
J-E-T-S!!!
jon.jpg
Jon
I feel like a wrong has been righted here. Randy Moss is a Viking again.
I've already told the senior staffers here, but I am proposing that after Favre retires, the Vikings sign Daunte Culpepper. I'm not kidding.
I'd even take Denny Green.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Unfortunately nothing worth mentioning happened to the Vikings this week. Half the Jets' roster is returning from suspension or injury though, surprise surprise.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
10/05/2010 @ 01:42:33 PM
 Quote this comment
This might be the Lions' week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/05/2010 1:46:35 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
10/05/2010 @ 02:27:40 PM
 Quote this comment
I'll save Jeremy the trouble. Portis might miss game against the Packers due to injury. Yeah, yeah, we know. Players always get hurt before they play the Packers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 10/05/2010 2:28:16 pm
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
10/06/2010 @ 07:14:38 AM
 Quote this comment
Moss to the Vikings, probably. All I can say is oh crap.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:12:54 AM
 Quote this comment
It's done.

[Insert maniacal Sideshow Bob laugh here]

And for a 3rd? Only the Patriots.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
10/06/2010 @ 09:23:01 AM
 Quote this comment
The Patriots now have 8 picks in the first 4 rounds of next year's draft. Joke's on them, since football will cease to exist after this season.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - More posts than they wanted.
10/06/2010 @ 09:24:34 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy,

Did you freak out last night when Sarah saw that on Twitter?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:27:36 AM
 Quote this comment
and the number 84 is open on the Vikings roster, so you won't have to buy a new jersey.

Now that he's back on the Vikings, can I go back to thinking Moss is a locker-room killing thug who smokes pot, runs over traffic cops, and beats up handicapped kids?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:27:45 AM
 Quote this comment
The Vikes get a 3rd if Moss doesn't sign long term as compensation anyway, so presumably that would have been true of the Pats. It's becoming more and more evident that Bill Belichick's becomeing too "smart" for his own good.

PackOne Wrote - Today @ 09:24:34 AM
Jeremy,

Did you freak out last night when Sarah saw that on Twitter?


Well I saw the original Simmons tweet that started the fire long before that, but as it became clearer and clearer that it was more than just "Screw Vincent Jackson, let's get Randy back" fan rumors, yeah, I was pretty excited.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:31:12 AM
 Quote this comment
See, I missed the Simmons Tweet doing homework. So when Glazer and PFT went with it I was shocked. Even Tom Pelissero sounded shocked. I suppose that Moss has wanted a trade since week one, just don't understand why the Vikes didn't go there right away.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:31:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:27:36 AM
and the number 84 is open on the Vikings roster, so you won't have to buy a new jersey.

Now that he's back on the Vikings, can I go back to thinking Moss is a locker-room killing thug who smokes pot, runs over traffic cops, and beats up handicapped kids?


Logan Payne wears 84.

Moss is actually really good with kids. There were lots of times where guys would be on tv talking about what a jerk Moss was, and like 50 feet away from them he's inviting kids onto the field and taking them around and introducing them to players. I yelled at them "why don't you ever film that!?" but it's probably a good thing they didn't, because the headlines would probably read "Moss kidnaps terrified kids, attempts to sell."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:33:35 AM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 09:31:12 AM
See, I missed the Simmons Tweet doing homework. So when Glazer and PFT went with it I was shocked. Even Tom Pelissero sounded shocked. I suppose that Moss has wanted a trade since week one, just don't understand why the Vikes didn't go there right away.


A) They probably thought it was too good to be true. I mean, only someone so "smart" could be this stupid. B) I don't think they realized the king's ransom the Chargers wanted for a guy that can't play half the year.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:35:36 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:31:48 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:27:36 AM
and the number 84 is open on the Vikings roster, so you won't have to buy a new jersey. Now that he's back on the Vikings, can I go back to thinking Moss is a locker-room killing thug who smokes pot, runs over traffic cops, and beats up handicapped kids?
Logan Payne wears 84. Moss is actually really good with kids. There were lots of times where guys would be on tv talking about what a jerk Moss was, and like 50 feet away from them he's inviting kids onto the field and taking them around and introducing them to players. I yelled at them "why don't you ever film that!?" but it's probably a good thing they didn't, because the headlines would probably read "Moss kidnaps terrified kids, attempts to sell."


Stupid ESPN not having the updated roster. I wonder if Payne will sell his number to Moss; players do that sometimes.

And your comments about him being good with kids doesn't fit my narrative, so clearly you're wrong. Maybe I could remove my "beats up handicapped kids", but if I've learned anything the Daily Show's observations of Fox News, you don't change the narrative, you change the news to fit your narrative.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 10/06/2010 9:35:54 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:40:21 AM
 Quote this comment
I think it's updated just fine. Payne is on the practice squad.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 10/06/2010 9:42:46 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 09:42:13 AM
 Quote this comment
oh, well, it doesn't show the practice squad.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Pie Racist
10/06/2010 @ 09:46:23 AM
 Quote this comment
No, and it's surprisingly hard to find who is on there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
10/06/2010 @ 10:11:43 AM
 Quote this comment
And you joke, but the narrative has already changed. Moss was a bad boy, went to the pats and suddenly everyone realized, hey, this guy isn't a bad dude, and suddenly all the "he's a great teammate" and "no one wants to win more than Randy" stories that were always there got some air time, but now that New England traded him, it must be because he was a locker room cancer, because the Patriots can't just have traded him. I mean, it's not like they have a history of trading key players to stock pile draft picks.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 10/06/2010 10:14:55 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
10/06/2010 @ 11:39:27 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:35:36 AM
And your comments about him being good with kids doesn't fit my narrative, so clearly you're wrong. Maybe I could remove my "beats up handicapped kids", but if I've learned anything the Daily Show's observations of Fox News, you don't change the narrative, you change the news to fit your narrative.


Yeah, because the Daily Show has no "narrative" that it picks and chooses what to fit into it.

And without wanting to start a war here or anything, while Fox News might not always be guilt-free in many cases, nothing they do is any worse that what you would see on CNN or, especially, MSNBC.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
10/06/2010 @ 11:51:03 AM
 Quote this comment
I'll venture to guess that I probably watch Fox News more than most of the folks on this site watch MSNBC. That doesn't mean that I like it. I think it's sort of "I know what I believe, so I'll watch what the other side has to say about it." I don't recall MSNBC making big broad claims about being fair and/or balanced. Fox News might not be any worse than the others, but they stand up on top of America with their big giant bull horn shouting "We are fair and balanced". That and the fact that they are an obviously more powerful corporation (who as a side not gives money directly to Republican organizations) makes Fox News worse, in my opinion. Those that claim moral authority I hold to a higher standard than those that don't.

Oh, it's on, like donkey kong. (I was sort of hoping to get a rise out of someone from that comment, as innocent and obviously obtuse as I was trying to be).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 11:53:57 AM
 Quote this comment
Don't fall for it Matt, Scott is just trying to distract us from the fact that Minnesota is the capital of Sports Universe, at least for the day.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 11:55:05 AM
 Quote this comment
NO!!! He's on to me. Don't listen to him Matt. Obama is awesome. Newt Gingrich is clueless. Sarah Palin is Crazy. Capitalism sucks! I plan on watching Keith Olberman tonight!

Furthermore: Look! A newly married interracial gay couple is bunring the american flag!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 10/06/2010 12:01:11 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:17:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:51:03 AM
I'll venture to guess that I probably watch Fox News more than most of the folks on this site watch MSNBC. That doesn't mean that I like it. I think it's sort of "I know what I believe, so I'll watch what the other side has to say about it." I don't recall MSNBC making big broad claims about being fair and/or balanced. Fox News might not be any worse than the others, but they stand up on top of America with their big giant bull horn shouting "We are fair and balanced". That and the fact that they are an obviously more powerful corporation (who as a side not gives money directly to Republican organizations) makes Fox News worse, in my opinion. Those that claim moral authority I hold to a higher standard than those that don't.

Oh, it's on, like donkey kong. (I was sort of hoping to get a rise out of someone from that comment, as innocent and obviously obtuse as I was trying to be).



It's a slogan.... I'm not sure what some other News channel slogans are, but most journalistic enterprises usually spout about how fair or objective they are. Does the New York Times really have "All the news that's fit to print" or is it really "All the news that's fit to print that also fits in with our lefty narrative"?

And NewsCorp. may be a big corporation, but so is Time Warner (CNN) and General Electric (NBC/MSNBC). In fact, I believe they are bigger.

And for the record, I watch a fair amount of MSNBC, more than I'd like to at times.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 10/06/2010 12:22:58 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:22:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:55:05 AM
Furthermore: Look! A newly married interracial gay couple is bunring the american flag!


Yes, because all conservatives are racist homophobes.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
10/06/2010 @ 12:23:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 12:22:27 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:55:05 AM
Furthermore: Look! A newly married interracial gay couple is bunring the american flag!
Yes, because all conservatives are racist homophobes.


I was quoting family guy. I think Brian was trying to distract the collection of living Confederate veterans when Peter said that Grant kicked Lee's butt.

And for the record, I'm probably less of a liberal than my comments on this site make me out to be. And I probably have the voting record to prove it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 10/06/2010 12:24:57 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
10/06/2010 @ 12:25:41 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, Family Guy sucks, so...
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:27:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Rush Limbaugh was on Family Guy last week, playing himself. I'm not sure if that makes them suck more or less, though.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:29:45 PM
 Quote this comment
But it must say something that the "Gingrich is clueless, Sarah Palin is crazy" got nothing. Does it?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:37:37 PM
 Quote this comment
moss_favre.jpg
Together at last
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/06/2010 12:37:56 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
10/06/2010 @ 12:43:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Seriously, how old are we? Everything about that picture looks like it's from 1980.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:27:14 PM
Rush Limbaugh was on Family Guy last week, playing himself. I'm not sure if that makes them suck more or less, though.


I couldn't beleive it when I found out that was actually him. Kudos for the sense of humor about himself.

Edit: And since some of you don't watch, he was on on. The whole episode was about him. It wasn't just a "Hillary sucks!" cameo.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 10/06/2010 12:44:17 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
10/06/2010 @ 12:52:47 PM
 Quote this comment
I've resorted to only flipping between Fox News and MSNBC (probably the two extremes of the spectrum here). But my reasoning is just plain stupid. Fox News is channel 45 and MSNBC is channel 46. CNN is 31, so instead of just hitting up or down on my remote, I have to hit 3-1. That's too much work, so half the time I forget the CNN even exists on my TV.

Of course, now that Rick Sanchez if fired, there is even less reason to watch CNN.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 10/06/2010 12:54:33 pm
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
10/06/2010 @ 12:55:09 PM
 Quote this comment
CNN does not set their own narrative beforehand. That would be impossible because they only broadcast things that are sent to their twitter feed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
2887.gifAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
10/06/2010 @ 12:59:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:55:05 AM
Furthermore: Look! A newly married interracial gay couple is bunring the american flag!


I can't believe Favre and Moss would do that.
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.
10/06/2010 @ 01:01:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:59:51 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:55:05 AM
Furthermore: Look! A newly married interracial gay couple is bunring the american flag!
I can't believe Favre and Moss would do that.


Unintentional but rather funny that the timing worked out that way. Hillarious.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
10/06/2010 @ 01:06:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - Today @ 12:55:09 PM
CNN does not set their own narrative beforehand. That would be impossible because they only broadcast things that are sent to their twitter feed.


I believe pretty much anything I read. And I think that makes me more selective than someone who doesn't.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
10/07/2010 @ 01:00:33 AM
 Quote this comment
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5656843

Barnett out for season. So that's their starting RB, ILB, and S now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
10/07/2010 @ 07:19:40 AM
 Quote this comment
that's pretty tragic considering he didn't think it was a big deal. Dang. I don't think the Packers can sustain much more.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 10/07/2010 7:20:22 am
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - 219 Posts
10/07/2010 @ 02:48:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Would Bill over the Jags or Panthers over Bears be considered upset picks? I see commentators sometimes pick..say... Colts over Chiefs as an upset and I never understood that!?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
10/09/2010 @ 11:43:09 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 10/06/2010 @ 11:39:27 AM
Scott Wrote - 10/06/2010 @ 09:35:36 AM
And your comments about him being good with kids doesn't fit my narrative, so clearly you're wrong. Maybe I could remove my "beats up handicapped kids", but if I've learned anything the Daily Show's observations of Fox News, you don't change the narrative, you change the news to fit your narrative.


Yeah, because the Daily Show has no "narrative" that it picks and chooses what to fit into it.

And without wanting to start a war here or anything, while Fox News might not always be guilt-free in many cases, nothing they do is any worse that what you would see on CNN or, especially, MSNBC.



Just thought I should throw this in there. Fox news says they are fair and balanced. They are obviously lying about this, and this is the problem that most of us have with it. We don't care that its conservative, but it just insults our intelligence when they claim they are fair and balanced and expect us to drink the kool-aid.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
10/09/2010 @ 11:43:36 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 10/06/2010 @ 12:55:09 PM
CNN does not set their own narrative beforehand. That would be impossible because they only broadcast things that are sent to their twitter feed.


Tell that to Rick Sanchez.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
10/09/2010 @ 11:44:25 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't think pack is going to super bowl this year now :(. They lost 3 of their starters... things are looking gloomy... :(
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
10/10/2010 @ 02:53:01 PM
 Quote this comment
So far key Redskins drives have ended on a snap through McNabb's hands, 2 obvious no calls, and a call that was inexplicably overturned, leading to something that probably also could have been called, leading to a missed FG.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - 219 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 03:15:04 PM
 Quote this comment
WOOHOO!! GO LIONS!! Hopefully CJ is okay
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 03:33:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Can anyone tell me how the packers game is going?!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - 219 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 03:36:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 04:33:11 PM
Can anyone tell me how the packers game is going?!

Hopefully they block this fg or they lose
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - 219 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 03:37:36 PM
 Quote this comment
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 04:36:54 PM
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 04:33:11 PM
Can anyone tell me how the packers game is going?!

Hopefully they block this fg or they lose

They lose...
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3355 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 04:53:37 PM
 Quote this comment
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/29437/aaron-rodgers-suffers-concussion
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
10/10/2010 @ 05:55:32 PM
 Quote this comment
I cannot remember a season where a Packers team lost so many starters due to injury.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 06:52:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Packers suck. And no, Matt did not break into my account.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Refactor Mercilessly
10/10/2010 @ 10:48:11 PM
 Quote this comment
emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Me at work.JPGOrinath - 5 Posts
10/10/2010 @ 11:29:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Remember when the 49ers had a good quarterback? I think it was about 11-12 years ago?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet.
10/11/2010 @ 06:44:59 AM
 Quote this comment
Orinath Wrote - Today @ 12:29:15 AM
Remember when the 49ers had a good quarterback? I think it was about 11-12 years ago?


SHAUN HILL
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
10/11/2010 @ 07:45:09 AM
 Quote this comment
From JSOnline's recap of the game:
When your starting running back (Ryan Grant, ankle), starting right tackle (Mark Tauscher, shoulder), starting inside linebacker (Nick Barnett, wrist), starting safety (Morgan Burnett, knee), top cover linebacker (Brandon Chillar, shoulder) and power fullback (Quinn Johnson, glute) are out to begin with, it's a critical situation.

When your quarterback (Aaron Rodgers, concussion), best offensive option (Finley, hamstring), best pass rusher (Clay Matthews, hamstring), best run stuffer (Ryan Pickett, ankle), best special teams player (Derrick Martin, ankle) and backup tight end (Donald Lee, shoulder) and linebacker (Frank Zombo, knee) all suffer injuries, it constitutes an emergency.


Argh! emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
10/11/2010 @ 09:58:55 AM
 Quote this comment
[Insert patently absurd, but good/brave/manly sounding, nonsense about injuries being no excuse here]
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 10/11/2010 9:59:23 am
flower .jpgPackOne - Sit down your rockin' the boat.
10/11/2010 @ 10:31:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:58:55 AM
[Insert patently absurd, but good/brave/manly sounding, nonsense about injuries being no excuse here]


They shouldn't be. The Colts and the Saints were both in the top four teams last year in games lost to injury. There was not a single Packer, bar Peprah that did not play in place of his one and do just as good if not better (Bishop) than his predecessor.

The healthiest teams in the last decade? The Kansas City Chiefs and the Titans. They should not be an excuse, especially on a team that doesn't budge on stocking itself with supposed emerging talent through the draft only.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 10:47:27 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm not calling it an excuse (although I'm a fan, not a coach or player, so I can make excuses), but it is hard to overcome so many injuries to so many starters.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 10:49:56 AM
 Quote this comment
Did Rodgers suffer a concussion early in the game?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
10/11/2010 @ 01:15:32 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 10:31:02 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:58:55 AM
[Insert patently absurd, but good/brave/manly sounding, nonsense about injuries being no excuse here]


They shouldn't be. The Colts and the Saints were both in the top four teams last year in games lost to injury. There was not a single Packer, bar Peprah that did not play in place of his one and do just as good if not better (Bishop) than his predecessor.

The healthiest teams in the last decade? The Kansas City Chiefs and the Titans. They should not be an excuse, especially on a team that doesn't budge on stocking itself with supposed emerging talent through the draft only.


That's completely unknowable. The starters are who they are because they're better. The fact that a replacement might catch what's thrown his way doesn't mean that the starter wouldn't have done better. A player like Finley getting open on a third down one time, where his replacement doesn't, could have had huge ramifications on the game. Matthews replacement might have come in and gotten 5 sacks, who's to say Matthews wouldn't have gotten 6?

Yes, making the plays that unfold to you is better than not, it's all the other plays that make a starter better. It's overly simplistic to say "he made his tackles" and "He caught the passes thrown to him" and decide "therefore no one else could have done better" because it's impossible to know all the plays that could have been made. How many throwaways would have gone to an open Finley, or YAC would he have gotten?

Injury stats are meaningless, because it's only relevant who's hurt. If given the choice between half the backups/special teams players breaking their legs, or just Rodgers, I imagine most Packer fans would spare Rodgers.

Edit: I mean really people that argue this point are basically arguing "It doesn't matter who's playing the game, we still have the better team, because .............. well just because" If injuries to major role players are "not an excuse" than who's on the roster in the first place* isn't an excuse. So, Packers and Lions should swap rosters, and then lets continue this "it doesn't matter who's playing, we should win because we're still somehow better" conversation.

*So long as said player doesn't get completely pushed around, catches passes when open, and other such things that fall in their lap.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 10/11/2010 1:26:53 pm
2887.gifAlex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret
10/11/2010 @ 01:24:30 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 10:31:02 AM
There was not a single Packer, bar Peprah that did not play in place of his one and do just as good if not better (Bishop) than his predecessor.


Wrong. They had almost no pass rush without Matthews in there. I'm tempted to throw some exclamatory enhancements on that sentence, but anybody that watched the whole game simply can't argue with that fact.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 01:30:13 PM
 Quote this comment
Yeah, and why not trade Matthews for a draft pick then? The Vikings will take him, I'm sure. If the Packers get no worse without Matthews, by definition Matthews doesn't make them better, so get some value for him, and build that all-equal depth! I bet the Vikings would even send more than one pick! How about a 5 and the 7th we got for Randy? That's 2 equally-good players to add depth! emoticonemoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 10/11/2010 1:32:46 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 01:40:45 PM
 Quote this comment
And yes, obviously some injuries are not excuses, because either the drop off isn't big, or the situation. If coming out of training camp the team flipped a coin to decide between two linebackers, than it's hard to make a case that there's an immense drop off from starter to backup.

Likewise, it would be somewhat silly to point out how much better the Packers could have done with Grant in there when you can make the same argument about Washington and Portis, if not moreso.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 01:49:08 PM
 Quote this comment
the whole "games lost due to injury stat" is not even that good of a gauge either. That's assuming that all injuries are created equal. So what if the Colts had a lot of games lost to injuries. I'm not going to do the research to see who the injured players were. But, when you have a player who is currently on pace for 27 sacks go down, that is a significant difference from a rookie saftey that has to be replaced by a slightly less skilled, but not that much less rookie or other player.

Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:15:32 PM
Injury stats are meaningless, because it's only relevant who's hurt. If given the choice between half the backups/special teams players breaking their legs, or just Rodgers, I imagine most Packer fans would spare Rodgers.


I wrote my response and then read this post. Well put. Even with your crazy example, I think the Packers might actually be better off with Rodgers healthy playing with a bunch of backups than the starters with a different QB.

The games lost stat is so objective when it is trying to judge something that is so subjective. One game lost by matthews is equal to about 4 games lost by a Frank Zombo, if you would want to weight it like that. So the fact that Nick barnett is lost for the season, that's really more devastating than just the 13 or so games that he actually ends up missing.

And again with Finley, as Jeremy was pointing out. Finley might go an entire game and not get a catch. But it's a lot more likely that his presence alone draws attention away from other receivers, an intangible that the Packers other TEs simply cannot claim.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 10/11/2010 1:50:45 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
10/11/2010 @ 01:55:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Right, you actually could end up getting more production out of a backup than the starter has had in a while, but in the end it could be because the starter drew the best cover guy, and a safety over the top, and now with the backup they put the nickleback out there and bring another guy in the box stop the run or pass rush.

So Randy's New England replacement might have 5 catches and 100 yards next week. That might come at the expense of 200 yards by other means.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 02:11:30 PM
 Quote this comment
Wow, I don't think we've ever been more in agreement on something. Although, with me making this statement, you might think there were indeed times where we were moreso in agreement, which would then spark another slightly unagreement, which could ruin this moment we just had.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 10/11/2010 2:13:23 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 02:23:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, to be fair, we're essentially agreeing on the point "Having worse players can be a reason for losing" which, as I stated in my original thesis, is patently absurd to argue otherwise. Not sure that puts our sordid past behind us. emoticon

It's just one of those things that makes you sound reasonable/non-homery that people (don't mean to just be picking on Packone here) say way too often, when if you really think about the statement at all, quickly turns into nonsense, for many reasons.

"Injuries aren't an excuse" is only true in-so-far-as-much as people sometimes pretend they're the only team dealing with it, however even then don't pretend that all injuries are equal, or it's a sheer "we have 5 people hurt, just like them" game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 10/11/2010 2:26:23 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 02:46:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Though it might be a fair point to point out the fact that maybe the Colts/Saints/Patriots "overcome" injuries because of who they have at QB, and that if Rodgers wants to rank in that class he has to work with whatever he has, but I'm not sure that's the same point.

I'm not sure how much of a drop off there really is from some of these guys to others. There's a reason the Colts never seem to miss on skill positions. No matter who's out there Manning is at QB (and, to a lesser extent, Wayne is on the other side of the field). So, are they really "overcoming" one of those guys getting hurt, or did it never really matter in the first place who Peyton was throwing to, as long as they had the base skills? Then again, without Manning the Colts might be a 3 win team.

As we hinted at before, it's not even necessarily about stats. The Colts 3rd WR might make top 20 Fantasy WR, and be completely interchangeable for the real team, because ultimately he's the "well I guess we have to try and cover him with a linebacker and hope" option Z in a pick-your-poison offense.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 5 times, last at 10/11/2010 2:52:05 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 02:54:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:46:31 PM
Though it might be a fair point to point out the fact that maybe the Colts/Saints/Patriots "overcome" injuries because of who they have at QB, and that if Rodgers wants to rank in that class he has to work with whatever he has, but I'm not sure that's the same point. I'm not sure how much of a drop off there really is from some of these guys to others. There's a reason the Colts never seem to miss on skill positions. No matter who's out there Manning is at QB and Wayne is on the other side of the field. So, are they really "overcoming" one of those guys getting hurt, or did it never really matter in the first place who Peyton was throwing to, as long as they had the base skills? Then again, without Manning the Colts might be a 3 win team.


Not to be too homerish, but this was always my thought with Favre at the helm, especially in the first half of his career. The year the Packers won the Super Bowl the Packers lost their best receiver for the year around week 4 and lost their number 2 receiver (Freeman) a couple weeks later for about half the season. Even with this, Favre still threw for almost 4000 yards that year and led the league in TDs. Of course, that season the Packers had the number 1 defense in the league, so obviously other factors play into it. But I think you are right, Rodgers needs to prove his worth now that his back is against the wall.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
10/11/2010 @ 03:03:43 PM
 Quote this comment
They could have had such a good d because of Favre too. When you're ahead it's a different game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
avatar2345.jpgPackOne - From your first cigarette to your last dyin' day.
10/11/2010 @ 08:58:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Who said anything about Matthews? I was talking about guys who replaced their ones this week. Guys who came in, played in practice all week as the one. Not having Matthews hurt, but that's an in game stat. Plus put the blame where it belongs on Dom Capers inability to adjust to his new talent. He continued to use his substitutes (obviously not Clay Matthews) as he would Clay. Of course you are going to get a diminished outcome.

I don't think injury stats are meaningless at all, especially AGL (Adjusted Games Lost) which accounts for Alex's weak argument that you can't place value on an injury.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/12/2010 8:27:37 am
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
10/11/2010 @ 09:49:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Maybe they aren't meaningless, but they are rather empty all by themselves. If you can put a value on injury, then one injury is clearly not the same as another, and it a subjective stat. You cannot give an empirical data to the loss occurred as a result of a certain player not being in the game. And so what if the players that started Sunday in place of other injured players did ok. It still doesn't change the fact that they are a weaker team without Ryan Grant and without Nick Barnett.

I didn't mention this when I saw this last week, but I don't care about the 70 yard run that Jackson busted out, the Packers are not as good without Grant. In the Lions game, on more than one play, whether it was Kuhn or Jackson, both players got to a hole and had a chance for big gains, but both players got tackled by their shoe strings with no one in front of them. That is what you miss with Ryan Grant. 1) he doesn't get tripped up by weak tackles, and 2) he probably is already past that guy who tripped up the other two.

The whole point of the injury argument is whether or not it matters when players go down. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter who is on the field from week to week. If it does matter, then it certainly matters which of those players goes down and how that affects the game plan from here on out.

That being said, the Packers offense put up 400 yards on the Redskins, so the injuries from that shouldn't have led to a loss, but they still are missing a couple of big pieces of their offense, and it is probably in the red zone when those losses are most obvious.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 10:03:41 PM
 Quote this comment
I think Desmond Bishop outplayed Barnett and probably will continue to do so.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
10/11/2010 @ 10:30:21 PM
 Quote this comment
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
10/11/2010 @ 10:44:14 PM
 Quote this comment
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 10:03:41 PM
I think Desmond Bishop outplayed Barnett and probably will continue to do so.


I'll give you that (well, obviously it's easy to outplay a guy who is hurt ;) , but I assume you mean he played better than Barnett had been playing). Bishop played as good of an ILB game as the Packers have had in a long time.

But if Barnett had been healthy maybe he and Bishop would have been in the game together and I wouldn't have had to watch Hawk get dragged for 3 yards every time he made a tackle.

I'm not sure what else you would recommend Capers should do. Other than not rush only 3 so often because 90% of the time they tried that it sucked.

If you want to blame the coaching, let's talk about the horrible "and goal" sequence of play calling. QB sneak? Player please. Worst executed button hook, which should never be called when everyone is tight to the line of scrimmage in the first place? Maybe it's called you pass on 3rd down if you want to pass and if that's the formation you have to throw a fade not some half-ass button hook. I can't guarantee they would have converted with Finley in there but it wouldn't have been that ugly at least.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1528 Posts
10/12/2010 @ 08:27:43 AM
 Quote this comment
The interesting thing about the play calling is that McCarthy was asked about that, especially the lack of running calls when we actually had a running game. He basically said that the Packers had a lot of run/pass play options called that were called at the line by Rodgers, essentially putting the blame on him.

Capers? You are spot on. He has to rush more than 3 on third down, especially with CM3 out. It has killed us for 20+ games now. He did the same thing last year.

Good point on Barnett on Bishop together, but I think it's clear that before the injury A.J. and Nick were going to be the starters, even though Bishop probably had a case there. I also thought that Hawk played pretty well actually. His tackle on Torain one-on-one stoning him at the line is a play only a handful of guys can make. Torain is a load, period.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
PackOne messed with this 2 times, last at 10/12/2010 8:28:34 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/12/2010 @ 01:09:23 PM
 Quote this comment
I didn't pay attention at the time (I was too busy going nuts about it), but I didn't realize that the first Viking play of the game--the moss to favre pass--was flagged for ineligible man down field. Apparently, in order for a QB to be an eligible receiver he must start at least one yard off the ball. Favre started under center, and would need to be in the shotgun to be able to go downfield and catch a pass. Bummer.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
10/12/2010 @ 05:52:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:30:21 PM
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

Why? What happened? I chose to go to bed at like 10:25.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
10/12/2010 @ 05:52:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Wow, I finished below .500 with picks this weeks. Either I don't care or the NFL has been weird this year. I could go either way.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
10/12/2010 @ 11:32:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:52:59 PM
Wow, I finished below .500 with picks this weeks. Either I don't care or the NFL has been weird this year. I could go either way.


Well, when the popular pick for NFC West champion is 0-5, I'd say things are weird.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
10/13/2010 @ 01:20:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:52:01 PM
Alex Wrote - 10/11/2010 @ 10:30:21 PM
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit

Why? What happened? I chose to go to bed at like 10:25.


Favre to Moss for a TD. That's just wrong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.