NFL 2010 Season Week 9 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
Buccaneers 21 @ Falcons 27
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
3 Picks - 13% 20 Picks - 87%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Buccaneers
Buccaneers
Chargers 29 @ Texans 23
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
7 Picks - 30% 16 Picks - 70%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Chargers
Chargers
Dolphins 10 @ Ravens 26
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
2 Picks - 9% 21 Picks - 91%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Dolphins
Dolphins
Saints 34 @ Panthers 3
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
23 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Saints
Cardinals 24 @ Vikings 27
final overtime
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
2 Picks - 9% 21 Picks - 91%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Jets 23 @ Lions 20
final overtime
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
18 Picks - 78% 5 Picks - 22%
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Patriots 14 @ Browns 34
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
23 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Bears 22 @ Bills 19
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 12:00pm
17 Picks - 74% 6 Picks - 26%
Bears
Bears
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bears
Bears
Giants 41 @ Seahawks 7
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 3:05pm
20 Picks - 83% 4 Picks - 17%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Chiefs 20 @ Raiders 23
final overtime
Sun, 11/7/10 3:15pm
11 Picks - 46% 13 Picks - 54%
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Raiders
Chiefs
Chiefs
Colts 24 @ Eagles 26
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 3:15pm
20 Picks - 83% 4 Picks - 17%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Eagles
Eagles
Colts
Colts
Cowboys 7 @ Packers 45
Final
Sun, 11/7/10 7:20pm
4 Picks - 17% 20 Picks - 83%
Packers
Packers
Cowboys
Cowboys
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Steelers 27 @ Bengals 21
Final
Mon, 11/8/10 7:30pm
22 Picks - 92% 2 Picks - 8%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Week Record10 - 3
0.769
First Place
8 - 5
0.615
10 - 3
0.769
First Place
8 - 5
0.615
Season Record72 - 58
0.554
76 - 54
0.585
73 - 57
0.561
73 - 57
0.561
Scotttime Record742 - 455
0.620
732 - 465
0.612
742 - 455
0.620
749 - 448
0.626
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1419 - 845
0.627
1343 - 921
0.593
1412 - 852
0.624
1408 - 856
0.622
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Seahawks
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:75 - 55
0.577
Lifetime:756 - 437
0.634
newalex.jpg
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Lions
Patriots
Bills
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:8 - 5
0.615
Season:79 - 51
0.608
Lifetime:739 - 456
0.618
goodlooking.jpg
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Seahawks
Chiefs
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:8 - 5
0.615
Season:54 - 47
0.535
Lifetime:692 - 456
0.603
avatar2345.jpg
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Lions
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:74 - 56
0.569
Lifetime:544 - 366
0.598
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Lions
Patriots
Bills
Seahawks
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:8 - 5
0.615
Season:67 - 63
0.515
Lifetime:524 - 342
0.605
070809_romo2_vmed_8p.widec.jpg
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Cowboys
Steelers

Week:8 - 5
0.615
Season:36 - 34
0.514
Lifetime:447 - 257
0.635
me.png
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Cardinals
Lions
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:74 - 56
0.569
Lifetime:312 - 215
0.592
IMG_0311_edited.JPG
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:37 - 32
0.536
Lifetime:229 - 136
0.627
picture07.bmp
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:81 - 49
0.623
Lifetime:406 - 228
0.640
blonde_gleam.gif
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Lions
Patriots
Bills
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:7 - 6
0.538
Season:33 - 24
0.579
Lifetime:340 - 183
0.650
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Buccaneers
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Eagles
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:74 - 56
0.569
Lifetime:246 - 150
0.621
question_mark.gif
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Bengals

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:65 - 50
0.565
Lifetime:219 - 136
0.617
question_mark.gif
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bills
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:76 - 53
0.589
Lifetime:234 - 122
0.657
Me at work.JPG
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Seahawks
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:9 - 4
0.692
Season:71 - 59
0.546
Lifetime:119 - 97
0.551
Me at sams.jpg
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Raiders
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:59 - 50
0.541
Lifetime:59 - 50
0.541
question_mark.gif
TB @ ATL - No Pick
LAC @ HOU - No Pick
MIA @ BAL - No Pick
NO @ CAR - No Pick
ARI @ MIN - No Pick
NYJ @ DET - No Pick
NE @ CLE - No Pick
CHI @ BUF - No Pick
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Cowboys
Steelers

Week:2 - 3
0.400
Season:58 - 51
0.532
Lifetime:58 - 51
0.532
hambone.jpg
Falcons
Chargers
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Packers
Steelers

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:79 - 51
0.608
Lifetime:79 - 51
0.608
Mollee.JPG
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Cardinals
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Raiders
Eagles
Packers
Steelers

Week:10 - 3
0.769
Season:22 - 18
0.550
Lifetime:22 - 18
0.550
077.JPG
Falcons
Texans
Ravens
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Colts
Cowboys
Steelers

Week:8 - 5
0.615
Season:17 - 10
0.630
Lifetime:17 - 10
0.630
082.JPG
Buccaneers
Texans
Dolphins
Saints
Vikings
Jets
Patriots
Bears
Giants
Chiefs
Eagles
Packers
Bengals

Week:7 - 6
0.538
Season:10 - 16
0.385
Lifetime:10 - 16
0.385
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Cardinals 24 @ Vikings 27

sarah.jpg
Sarah
My two home picks are Vikings and Packers. Minnesota isn't even a train wreck at this point. Rocket ship wreck? I don't know. Still going with them for Sunday. I'm sure I'll regret it.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The run needs to start this week.
jon.jpg
Jon
Maybe some relationships just aren't meant to be. So long, Randy. Again.

Cowboys 7 @ Packers 45

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Speaking of train wrecks, how 'bout dem Cowboys? Packers defense was impressive against the Jets. Can't say the same for the offense. Rodgers looks like he hasn't fully recovered from his concussion.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
The Packers better watch out. Though they suck, the Cowboys might at least attempt to play offense, unlike a certain NY team.
jon.jpg
Jon
If Kitna weren't so interception prone, this might be different.

Steelers 27 @ Bengals 21

sarah.jpg
Sarah
People have been saying Moss should go to the Bengals. I think the Bengals would implode, taking all of Ohio with them.
jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
OH, who cares?
jon.jpg
Jon
Roethlis-burger! I get it now.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
11/03/2010 @ 07:53:36 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm ending my 2 game streak of picking against the Packers. I hope that doesn't jinx them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
11/03/2010 @ 03:46:27 PM
 Quote this comment
Moss apparently is playing for the Titans now. They play @Miami this week, which will Moss's second time playing at Miami. I was hoping for a team that played the Vikings or the Patriots yet this season. Or a team that played the Jets would have been even better, because then he would have played them three times this year.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/03/2010 @ 04:07:29 PM
 Quote this comment
all you need to know about their short-term status came when Childress was asked how he would compensate for Moss' departure on the field. "We've got Hank Baskett," Childress said

I didn't think it was possible to top the Viking fill-in-player absurdity of Denny Green's "Jimmy Kleinsasser will have to step up" comments after Robert Smith's abrupt retirement, but this might come close.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - Two raw eggs in the morning
11/04/2010 @ 07:19:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:46:27 PM
Moss apparently is playing for the Titans now. They play @Miami this week, which will Moss's second time playing at Miami. I was hoping for a team that played the Vikings or the Patriots yet this season. Or a team that played the Jets would have been even better, because then he would have played them three times this year.


He would have played all 3 if he joined the Lions, but I wouldn't want him on the Lions.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
11/06/2010 @ 09:02:08 PM
 Quote this comment
RUFiO1984 Wrote - 11/04/2010 @ 07:19:58 AM
Scott Wrote - 11/03/2010 @ 03:46:27 PM
Moss apparently is playing for the Titans now. They play @Miami this week, which will Moss's second time playing at Miami. I was hoping for a team that played the Vikings or the Patriots yet this season. Or a team that played the Jets would have been even better, because then he would have played them three times this year.


He would have played all 3 if he joined the Lions, but I wouldn't want him on the Lions.


Yeah, you wouldn't want to mess with such a good thing.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
11/07/2010 @ 01:32:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Childress sucks.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
11/07/2010 @ 02:42:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Hey Vikings, I need AP to get some more points. Stop failing so hard inside the 10.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
11/07/2010 @ 02:49:40 PM
 Quote this comment
Thank you for the quick response. Now let Arizona run the kickoff back for a TD again.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/07/2010 @ 08:46:27 PM
 Quote this comment
I think the Packers got a real break on that kick-off fumble/td return. However, when you are a team that is as embarrassing at every single aspect of the game from players to coaches like the Cowboys are, you are going to get hosed like that sometimes. Why did they call their last timeout with 2:15 left in the half when the Packers would have probably let the clock run to the two minute warning. Either way, I highly doubt that will have any effect on the outcome of the game. The cowboys suck.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/07/2010 @ 09:34:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, Nick Collins better get his checkbook ready, and maybe his game day sideline gear.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpgRUFiO1984 - I put my socks on the wrong feet.
11/08/2010 @ 06:45:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - 11/06/2010 @ 10:02:08 PM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - 11/04/2010 @ 08:19:58 AM
Scott Wrote - 11/03/2010 @ 04:46:27 PM
Moss apparently is playing for the Titans now. They play @Miami this week, which will Moss's second time playing at Miami. I was hoping for a team that played the Vikings or the Patriots yet this season. Or a team that played the Jets would have been even better, because then he would have played them three times this year.


He would have played all 3 if he joined the Lions, but I wouldn't want him on the Lions.
Yeah, you wouldn't want to mess with such a good thing.


Cheap shot. And yes I do see the Lions becoming a good thing..
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
RUFiO1984 perfected this 2 times, last at 11/08/2010 6:46:21 am
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 07:17:43 AM
 Quote this comment
The Lions literally gave the game to the Jets at the end of the game yesterday. If the Lions QB would have taken the sack with 40 seconds left the Jets would not have had enough time to kick the game tying field goal.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 11:58:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Apparently their big win wasn't enough to make the soap opera that is Brad and Brett go away. Not only is Childress a lousy coach, he's apparently not at all funny either. When your QB doesn't know you were joking about your post-game press conference comments, then it probably wasn't quite the thing to say.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 12:42:01 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't know where you're getting that from. The whole thing is one big over-reaction. The week before Brett was asked if Childress was a "compassionate coach" and Favre answered something along the lines of "What do you mean, does he give us hugs? I could use a hug. He's Fine."

Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it. Those who didn't get it had the option of finding out what he meant, or reading too far into it and flying off the handle, naturally everyone chose the latter.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 11/08/2010 12:42:11 pm
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
11/08/2010 @ 12:58:25 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, maybe he just needs to work on his delivery then. The way he said it didn't seem to lend itself to "I'm referrencing something from earlier this week." My first impression was that it was indeed a slight on Favre, not realizing it was referrencing Favre directly. Then Favre made comments later in his press conference about not getting along with his coach/coordinators/qb coach/etc, it seemed to be in response to a slight.

But then again, after reading my original comment about it, the gist of it was simply that Childress isn't funny, and his "joke" was delivered so poorly that it lent itself to being an insult.

But all that being said, I think Childress could indeed use a hug.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 11/08/2010 12:58:51 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 01:09:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, again, it wasn't "delivered poorly" it was just an inside joke, if that, since it was really just a reference to something Brett said to those same people actually in the room for that presser.

Even if it was "delivered poorly" that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a slight, and any interpretation of it as a slight is simply misinformed, and the fact that it's easy to see why someone who didn't know about the earlier comment might consider it a slight, that doesn't make it any closer to one either. (Though even then people wouldn't have any idea what the hell he meant, so they're still leaping to the presupposition that is was some kind of shot.)

I don't doubt Childress and Favre don't get along all that well, but you needn't even read all that far into Favre's comments. It's just as valid to look at those types of comments like "We're all professionals and who we do or don't want to go grab a burger with after wards doesn't change the fact that we all want the same thing on Sunday and everyone is working hard toward that goal"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy perfected this 3 times, last at 11/08/2010 1:17:10 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
11/08/2010 @ 01:19:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:42:01 PM
Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it.


I got it and I didn't think it was that funny. I also agree with Scott that if it was meant as a joke, then he needs to work on his delivery (especially since with his history, it's not that far out of the realm that he was actually trying to get a little dig in on Favre).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 01:32:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, the people I follow on twitter, aka the guys he was actually talking to, said it got a good chuckle out of the group.

Personally I barely think it qualifies as a joke, like I said, he was more or less just repeating what Favre said.

And again, no matter how easy it was to make the mistake of assuming that was a dig, it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't. Nor does it change the fact that if you're going to tell millions of other people "what happened", you should probably invest 19 seconds into finding out what happened yourself.

Edit: In other words I don't think people like Scott are all that in the wrong. There are 50,000 articles out there about how Childress took another swipe at Favre, and it was all over TV last night. Though some level of skepticism is healthy, people can't be expected to ferret out the original source on everything. On the other hand I do think the media has a responsibility to verify what the crap they're talking about, because it would really take 9 seconds of effort for them to find out there's nothing to see here. The history doesn't forgive this, if anything it makes it worse, because it's a sign that the media has already decided the story, and are viewing everything through that lens.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 11/08/2010 1:41:15 pm
matt.jpgMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
11/08/2010 @ 01:40:55 PM
 Quote this comment
Well I'm assuming that the people you follow on Twitter are local writers. As Kevin Seifert wrote: "But Childress wasn't speaking Sunday to a small group of people. His postgame news conference had national interest, and it's understandable that Childress' sarcasm would raise some eyebrows for those who didn't know the background and weren't expecting dark humor in that situation."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
11/08/2010 @ 01:42:49 PM
 Quote this comment
Right, except he was actually speaking to local writers.

"Understandable" and "has some truth to it" are two different things. As are "raising eyebrows" and "foaming-mouth overreactions".

Yes, obviously lots of journalists who heard the comments wouldn't know what they meant instantly, and it's easy to see how they might "raise eyebrows." However, the procedure should have been "That was odd, what did he mean by that? ......... Oh. Ok then."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 11/08/2010 1:50:02 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
11/08/2010 @ 01:50:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:09:32 PM
Well, again, it wasn't "delivered poorly" it was just an inside joke, if that, since it was really just a reference to something Brett said to those same people actually in the room for that presser. Even if it was "delivered poorly" that doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a slight, and any interpretation of it as a slight is simply misinformed, and the fact that it's easy to see why someone who didn't know about the earlier comment might consider it a slight, that doesn't make it any closer to one either. (Though even then people wouldn't have any idea what the hell he meant, so they're still leaping to the presupposition that is was some kind of shot.) I don't doubt Childress and Favre don't get along all that well, but you needn't even read all that far into Favre's comments. It's just as valid to look at those types of comments like "We're all professionals and who we do or don't want to go grab a burger with after wards doesn't change the fact that we all want the same thing on Sunday and everyone is working hard toward that goal"


Among other things giving Vikings so many headaches, they are also fighting a PR war. Things look bad inside the Vikings locker room and front office. So even though it wasn't a slight, the perception initially was that it was, and even though they explained that it wasn't, it is just another piece to add to ever growing puzzle of viking adversity. So essentially, if those that took it as a slight were misinformed, then fine. But the Vikings are a team that right now need to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression about certain things, one of those things being the QB/Coach relationship. If that relationship is irreparable, then one of them needs to go, and soon. If it is reparable, then this episode simply casts more doubts about it. Public perception is something that can be controlled, if even only slightly.

*The bold statement above: that's my point. While it wasn't a slight, it was perceived as one. Had Childress delivered his joke better it would have been obvious that it wasn't a slight. But he delivered it badly, and even if everyone understood that it was a reference to Favre's comments earlier, he could have been using those comments as a jab at his QB.

Edit:

Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:19:00 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:42:01 PM
Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it.
I got it and I didn't think it was that funny. I also agree with Scott that if it was meant as a joke, then he needs to work on his delivery (especially since with his history, it's not that far out of the realm that he was actually trying to get a little dig in on Favre).


Agreeing with Matt, there was no "leaping to presupposition". There was a reaction based on very recent and very real animosity between the two.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 11/08/2010 1:55:28 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
11/08/2010 @ 01:56:03 PM
 Quote this comment
So they should just not reference each other at all then, since anything they say could be torn from its context, twisted, misreported, etc? Of course then the story would just become "Favre and Childress hate each other so much they won't even talk about one another."

The fact that this "counts" either way because it's still "out there" as more bad PR, even if it's completely false, is just one more piece of evidence our society has a collective IQ of 65, and all the more reason journalists need to stop taking the lazy way out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 01:56:47 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:42:49 PM
Right, except he was speaking to local writers.

"Understandable" and "has some truth to it" are two different things.


With a national television feed and national writers there as well. And to be fair, you have no more proof that it wasn't a slight other than his word, of which there is reason to be skeptical. Now, I think he was probably kidding, but it still seemed to be a weird thing to say (without making it known it was a joke) considering their history and all that has gone on the past few weeks.

I'm also not sure who specifically you have a problem with in the media, but most reports I've seen add that Childress clarified later (presumably from reporters doing their job) that he was kidding.

Even if it was partly the media's fault (and they're the media, so it probably was), people in the public view know what will happen when they say anything strange like that. With the hot water Childress is in, he should be more careful.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 01:57:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:50:19 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:19:00 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:42:01 PM
Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it.
I got it and I didn't think it was that funny. I also agree with Scott that if it was meant as a joke, then he needs to work on his delivery (especially since with his history, it's not that far out of the realm that he was actually trying to get a little dig in on Favre).


Agreeing with Matt, there was no "leaping to presupposition". There was a reaction based on very recent and very real animosity between the two.


It was a false assumption based on previous events...what part of that isn't leaping to a presupposition?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:00:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:57:57 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:50:19 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:19:00 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:42:01 PM
Childress' comment was just a call back, and was quite funny to those who got it.
I got it and I didn't think it was that funny. I also agree with Scott that if it was meant as a joke, then he needs to work on his delivery (especially since with his history, it's not that far out of the realm that he was actually trying to get a little dig in on Favre).
Agreeing with Matt, there was no "leaping to presupposition". There was a reaction based on very recent and very real animosity between the two.
It was a false assumption based on previous events...what part of that isn't leaping to a presupposition?


I took "leaping" to mean that it was sort of out of thin air (the connotation of the word lends itself to more than a bit of irrationality), which it wasn't. If that's not what you meant, I think a less colorful word would have been better. Maybe simply saying "they made a false assumption based on previous events" would have worked.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:01:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:56:03 PM
So they should just not reference each other at all then, since anything they say could be torn from its context, twisted, misreported, etc? Of course then the story would just become "Favre and Childress hate each other so much they won't even talk about one another." The fact that this "counts" either way because it's still "out there" as more bad PR, even if it's completely false, is just one more piece of evidence our society has a collective IQ of 65, and all the more reason journalists need to stop taking the lazy way out.


Well, stop feeding the fire, basically. Again, when you are fighting a PR war, you have to act differently. If Tony Dungy made some off handed comment about Peyton Manning, everyone would laugh it off and know it was light hearted. But then again, Manning and Dungy had a good relationship that everyone knew about. Favre and Childress don't, so it behooves them to watch what they say.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:04:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 01:56:47 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:42:49 PM
Right, except he was speaking to local writers.

"Understandable" and "has some truth to it" are two different things.


With a national television feed and national writers there as well. And to be fair, you have no more proof that it wasn't a slight other than his word, of which there is reason to be skeptical. Now, I think he was probably kidding, but it still seemed to be a weird thing to say (without making it known it was a joke) considering their history and all that has gone on the past few weeks.

I'm also not sure who specifically you have a problem with in the media, but most reports I've seen add that Childress clarified later (presumably from reporters doing their job) that he was kidding.

Even if it was partly the media's fault (and they're the media, so it probably was), people in the public view know what will happen when they say anything strange like that. With the hot water Childress is in, he should be more careful.


I agree he "could be more careful" but on the other hand without a crystal ball it's hard to know what will and won't get misinterpreted. If you're looking for something, you'll almost always find it. So while that sounds good to say, it's an essentially meaningless statement which no one knows what it would mean in practice. After all, what better way to show "we get along fine" than "we're on joking with each other terms?"

My objection is mainly that this has clearly become one of those "this story is already written" situations where no one takes the time to question the narrative.

And I'm not really saying it was or wasn't a slight, if you're going to put it that way. Could he still have meant SOMETHING by it? Maybe. The point is that to not make the connection there, to not even try to figure out what he meant, and mention the fact that Favre talked a couple days earlier about needing a hug, and instead spin the story like Childress right then and there conjured up this "need a hug" line of thought, is lazy inept journalism.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 11/08/2010 2:09:53 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:05:03 PM
 Quote this comment
The fact that he was referencing a past comment by Favre does not automatically make it innocent. And the fact that Childress then said it was a joke does not make it not a slight. He could be reacting to the negative reaction from the media too and realizing he better claim it was a joke. He also could have himself felt slighted when Favre said he wasn't really a compasionate coach. So the media isn't really going too far in any direction, in my opnion.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 11/08/2010 2:13:53 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:08:26 PM
 Quote this comment
If a coach says in a press conference, "That guy is a fucking lousy ballplayer" and they have a history of butting heads, I'm not sure I'd expect the press to go back and research everything in their past to see if its a joke before writing about it in their post game stories.

And yes, I know Childress' statement wasn't that harsh.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
11/08/2010 @ 02:18:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 02:08:26 PM
If a coach says in a press conference, "That guy is a fucking lousy ballplayer" and they have a history of butting heads, I'm not sure I'd expect the press to go back and research everything in their past to see if its a joke before writing about it in their post game stories.

And yes, I know Childress' statement wasn't that harsh.


That would be a completely different situation. There's not a lot of context there. Though you could still put a bit of effort into finding if that was a tongue-in-cheek reference, like the first time a national writer heard Francona call Johnny Damon an "Idiot". This would be closer to if a coach said of a player who just had a good game that he was, almost all rumoredly, butting heads with: "That guy needs to get his hair done more often." Yes, it's possible that was simply just a shot at the guys hair cut, but it would be odd and out of left field enough that it should make someone say, "Where'd that come from?" At which point they can reach all the way back 2 days into the archives, or just ask the local guy sitting next to them, to find out that a day before the game the player was talking about how he was trying out a new hairstyle for the game to try and change things up.

Edit: And obviously it could still be a shot along the lines of "I think his hair looks stupid" but doing that story without finding out or mentioning why "hair" was brought up at all would be worthy of criticism, and considering it not all that important to add to the follow up stories when it's pointed out to you is borderline unethical.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 11/08/2010 2:29:33 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:27:42 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:18:48 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 02:08:26 PM
If a coach says in a press conference, "That guy is a fucking lousy ballplayer" and they have a history of butting heads, I'm not sure I'd expect the press to go back and research everything in their past to see if its a joke before writing about it in their post game stories. And yes, I know Childress' statement wasn't that harsh.
That would be a completely different situation. There's not a lot of context there. Though you could still put a bit of effort into finding if that was a tongue-in-cheek reference. This would be closer to if a coach said of a player who just had a good game that he was, almost all rumoredly, butting heads with: "That guy needs to get his hair done more often." Yes, it's possible that was simply just a shot at the guys hair cut, but it would be odd and out of left field enough that it should make someone say, "Where'd that come from?" At which point they can reach all the way back 2 days into the archives, or just ask the local guy sitting next to them, to find out that a day before the game the player was talking about how he was trying out a new hairstyle for the game to try and change things up.


But again, just because he was referencing what the guy said two days earlier doesn't mean it wasn't a dig. They could see that the QB talked about getting a hair cut, and the now saying something about his hair could be a jab. But your example of the haircut thing is somewhat complimentary of the guy. Childress' comments were certainly not an "at-a-boy".
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:31:16 PM
 Quote this comment
That was never really what I meant as my point, which I've addressed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 02:43:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Is your overall point that the media is stupid and that society buys into the media's idiocy?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
11/08/2010 @ 02:56:05 PM
 Quote this comment
You guys are right that I over spoke with the implication that it was definitely not a shot of any way shape or form, when all I really meant was that it's not the "out of no where shot at Farve's neediness" it's being reported as. The point is that "eyebrow raising" is, I think, a perfect way to describe those comments if you didn't know, and I don't like that we live in a society of "I have to run with this story right this second because otherwise I'll get scooped, and to hell with the facts" because you were absolutely right in your assessment that things still "count" even if not true.

Was this a shot at Favre? Maybe, but reporting on it without the easy to find out backstory, and worse, not mentioning the backstory after you do find out in your subsequent stories is inept, at best. Either way, what happened isn't the story they're telling, and taken as a whole was almost certainly not worthy of 2% of the coverage it's gotten.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 11/08/2010 2:57:11 pm
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
11/08/2010 @ 04:58:29 PM
 Quote this comment
I think the whole situation surrounding the comments could actually be a good thing. Sort of creates an "inside" "outside" thing and Favre and Childress are on the same side. If there is any confusion on his intentions, they can iron that out in two seconds at practice.

Ultimately, sometimes things can play out like this: the more the press badgers them about their relationship, the more they'll dig their heels in and push back against the people asking the questions. So, as long as it's true that they don't absolutely hate each other to the point of not being able to work together, it actually could create some common ground. It creates a "common enemy" if you will, and they'll go out of their way to make it clear that they're capable of working together. They might even over-compensate and be especially complimentary of each other.

Just a thought. It could play out any number of ways, but from what I hear, never underestimate pro athletes' ability to turn a situation into an "us vs. them" mindset for extra motivation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
11/08/2010 @ 05:28:41 PM
 Quote this comment
That could be, though I think it's already happening from Favre's end. He's tried the "there's not really a big problem" angle, and since that didn't work now he's trying the "why would it matter if there was?" angle.

Also, since it's so totally related, I hate that it's already pitch black out.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1 bajillion posts
11/08/2010 @ 05:38:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:28:41 PM


Also, since it's so totally related, I hate that it's already pitch black out.


Agreed. I noticed it earlier and figured it was just because I wasted my day, but now I remember the whole daylight savings undoing.
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.