NFL 2011 Season Week 13 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Eagles 14 @ Seahawks 31 Final Thu, 12/1/11 7:20pm
|
Eagles
 |
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Jets 34 @ Commanders 19 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Jets
 |
Jets
|
Commanders
 |
Jets
|
||||
| Falcons 10 @ Texans 17 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Panthers 38 @ Buccaneers 19 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Buccaneers
 |
Buccaneers
|
Buccaneers
|
Panthers
 |
||||
| Raiders 14 @ Dolphins 34 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Raiders
 |
Raiders
|
Raiders
|
Dolphins
 |
||||
| Chiefs 10 @ Bears 3 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Bears
 |
Bears
|
Bears
|
Bears
|
||||
| Broncos 35 @ Vikings 32 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Broncos
 |
||||
| Titans 23 @ Bills 17 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Bills
 |
Bills
|
Bills
|
Titans
 |
||||
| Colts 24 @ Patriots 31 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Bengals 7 @ Steelers 35 Final Sun, 12/4/11 12:00pm
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Ravens 24 @ Browns 10 Final Sun, 12/4/11 3:05pm
|
Ravens
 |
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
||||
| Packers 38 @ Giants 35 Final Sun, 12/4/11 3:15pm
|
Packers
 |
Giants
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Cowboys 13 @ Cardinals 19 final overtime Sun, 12/4/11 3:15pm
|
Cowboys
 |
Cowboys
|
Cowboys
|
Cowboys
|
||||
| Rams 0 @ 49ers 26 Final Sun, 12/4/11 3:15pm
|
49ers
 |
49ers
|
49ers
|
49ers
|
||||
| Lions 17 @ Saints 31 Final Sun, 12/4/11 6:20pm
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
Saints
|
||||
| Chargers 38 @ Jaguars 14 Final Mon, 12/5/11 7:30pm
|
Chargers
 |
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
||||
| Week Record | 8 - 8 0.500  | 8 - 8 0.500 | 8 - 8 0.500 | 12 - 4 0.750  | ||||
| Season Record | 120 - 72 0.625 | 105 - 87 0.547 | 115 - 77 0.599 | 132 - 60 0.688 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 949 - 577 0.622 | 912 - 614 0.598 | 942 - 584 0.617 | 966 - 560 0.633 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3291 - 1921 0.631 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | 3319 - 1893 0.637 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1626 - 967 0.627 | 1523 - 1070 0.587 | 1612 - 981 0.622 | 1625 - 968 0.627 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 122 - 70 0.635 |
| Lifetime: | 962 - 559 0.632 |
Commanders
Falcons
Panthers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Jaguars
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 123 - 69 0.641 |
| Lifetime: | 943 - 581 0.619 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Vikings
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Lions
Chargers
| Week: | 7 - 9 0.438 |
| Season: | 119 - 72 0.623 |
| Lifetime: | 843 - 549 0.606 |
Jets
Texans
Buccaneers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 4 0.733 |
| Season: | 93 - 69 0.574 |
| Lifetime: | 542 - 344 0.612 |
Jets
Falcons
Panthers
Dolphins
Bears
Vikings
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 130 - 62 0.677 |
| Lifetime: | 735 - 452 0.619 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Dolphins
Chiefs
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 4 0.733 |
| Season: | 122 - 67 0.645 |
| Lifetime: | 543 - 311 0.636 |
Jets
Texans
Panthers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 127 - 65 0.661 |
| Lifetime: | 510 - 327 0.609 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Chiefs
Broncos
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Giants
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 122 - 69 0.639 |
| Lifetime: | 614 - 340 0.644 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Vikings
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 56 - 29 0.659 |
| Lifetime: | 129 - 73 0.639 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 117 - 75 0.609 |
| Lifetime: | 445 - 280 0.614 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Jaguars
| Week: | 8 - 7 0.533 |
| Season: | 87 - 57 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 372 - 228 0.620 |
Jets
Falcons
Panthers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 116 - 63 0.648 |
| Lifetime: | 429 - 232 0.649 |
Commanders
Texans
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Jaguars
| Week: | 8 - 7 0.533 |
| Season: | 84 - 50 0.627 |
| Lifetime: | 278 - 201 0.580 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Jaguars
| Week: | 8 - 7 0.533 |
| Season: | 104 - 50 0.675 |
| Lifetime: | 242 - 149 0.619 |
Jets
Falcons
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 128 - 64 0.667 |
| Lifetime: | 295 - 164 0.643 |
Jets
Texans
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Lions
Chargers
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 124 - 68 0.646 |
| Lifetime: | 219 - 137 0.615 |
Jets
Texans
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Titans
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Giants
Cowboys
49ers
Lions
Jaguars
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 126 - 66 0.656 |
| Lifetime: | 205 - 109 0.653 |
Jets
Texans
Buccaneers
Raiders
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cardinals
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 99 - 63 0.611 |
| Lifetime: | 99 - 63 0.611 |
Jets
Falcons
Panthers
Dolphins
Bears
Broncos
Bills
Patriots
Steelers
Ravens
Packers
Cowboys
49ers
Saints
Chargers
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 106 - 55 0.658 |
| Lifetime: | 106 - 55 0.658 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Broncos 35 @ Vikings 32 | |
 | JeremyChristian vs Christian. Luckily for the Vikings the only thing Tebow excels at is beating crappy teams. Uh...hmm. |
 | SarahSo excited to be going to the game, I've got Tebow Fever and the only cure is more Tebow! |
 | JonPonder-mania has reached an all-time high! |
 | Colts 24 @ Patriots 31 | |
| JeremyWorst Prize. |
| SarahWhat a match-up! |
| JonI don't think this one is even on national tv anymore. |
| Packers 38 @ Giants 35 | |
| JeremyBoo. |
| SarahWatching the Giants last night made me feel way better about this game. WAY BETTER. |
| JonIn some ways, the Giants really do look like a team that could beat the Packers. The Giants' weakness is stopping the run, so the Packers might be suckered into running, which in my mind, they should never do anyway. They also do a good job of getting to the quarterback, which seems to be something the Packers have let happen from time to time. And the qb/receivers/passing game are good enough to really put some points on the board. Of course, they did completely fall apart one week ago, but sometimes that doesn't matter. |
 | Lions 17 @ Saints 31 | |
| JeremyThis is about the Saints, so I assume at least 10% of the space has to be dedicated to Aaron Rodgers. |
| JonI'd like to have Drew Brees as my quarterback. Seems like it'd be fun. |
| SarahSomehow didn't comment on this game originally, maybe I should leave it that way. |
| Chargers 38 @ Jaguars 14 |  |
| JeremyHow is it the team with the interim head coach is the Jaguars? |
| SarahI figure with the Jaguars firing their coach and about to be sold, they might have some inner turmoil heading into this game. Ooo but still, the Chargers have lost like 5 in a row! See, this is what I'm talkin' 'bout! |
| JonThe Chargers just seem like they have a better chance to actually score some points, right? |
  | Scott - 6225 Posts 11/29/2011 @ 09:12:56 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| Here's an interesting stat someone from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal dug up about Favre: During the last 6 games of the 1995 season (including playoffs), and the first 6 games of the 96 season, Favre threw 49 touchdown passes, 7 interceptions, and 4243 yards. Pretty good stretch there. It was a writer that has been criticized by current packer fans and readers for being too "pro-Favre" and too "Rodgers isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread." It turns out that Favre guy was pretty decent at one time. |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 11/29/2011 @ 09:21:56 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I should also point out that while watching the Packers play the Lions, I got into a "discussion" with some of my in-laws about Favre. There was a general shock that someone actually still admitted to liking Favre (me). It was also the general feeling that Rodgers is hands down a better QB now than Favre ever was. When I laid this stat on them (the one from my previous post), or that I said if Rodgers had a season ending injury tomorrow he wouldn't be in the hall of fame, or that Favre will certainly make the Packers hall of fame, it was essentially discounted and "do you think they'd still put him in the hall?". Wow, how the emotions run crazy. Rodgers is good. But don't discount Favre. Saying Favre was good is not an insult to the current QB. It should also be pointed it that the people I was talking with were all 25 years of age or younger. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 11/29/2011 9:23:37 am | ||
  | jaysmallz1234 - 4 Posts 11/29/2011 @ 10:00:17 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Favre is a legend! Love or Hate him, He is an all time great in the QB posistion. Rodger's not to take away from his play, has an excellant offense to support him! Both get Kudos! SN: TEEEEBBBOOOWWWWW :) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 12/01/2011 @ 06:23:13 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - 11/29/2011 @ 09:21:56 AM I should also point out that while watching the Packers play the Lions, I got into a "discussion" with some of my in-laws about Favre. ... It should also be pointed that the people I was talking with were all 25 years of age or younger. The age of those other people does make a difference. Though, people are weird about the Favre subject all around. As well documented on here, the sentiments over his career have gone from extreme to extreme for fans and foes alike. On the Rodgers/Favre comparisons, it's also probably noteworthy that even from Favre's prime to Rodgers' prime, the NFL is very different with respect to passing offenses. What each would have done in the other "era," I don't know and don't really care, but at some point Rodgers will start to amass numbers that fuel the debate more and suddenly Favre is Barry Larkin'd right out of the picture. OK, maybe not a great analogy, but there's a point there. As for the Packer Hall of Fame, I think you're wrong Scott. You obviously need some historical perspective. The Packers had a successful coach named Vince Lombardi years ago. He left the Packers and ended up finishing his career with the Redskins. The fans just never forgave that insulting act. Even to this day, you hardly ever hear of the guy. I haven't checked this, but I'm pretty sure he's not even in the Packer Hall of Fame. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 12/01/2011 @ 07:58:02 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Brett Favre 1995 Ok, so someone apparently took a bunch of time to create a series of videos of all of Favre's touchdown passes. Pretty enjoyable to watch, no doubt, but there is one thing that stands out to me about Favre touchdowns that you can compare to Rodgers without even watching Rodgers play. Notice the number of times Favre has to get peeled off of the turf after throwing a touchdown. QBs even 5 years ago, let alone nearly 20 years ago, were always taking the risk of getting plastered if they stood in there and made a throw. You almost never see Rodgers get hit after making a throw. Favre is probably one of the few QBs to have been so firmly implanted in this transition from the old NFL of all-things-go and today's NFL of don't-touch-the-qb. You are right, it is difficult to compare the two because of the eras they play in. But unfortunately most fans don't have a clue about this and even when they do refuse to consider it as a factor. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 12/01/2011 7:58:58 am | ||
 | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/01/2011 @ 02:08:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Speaking of team-hall-of-fames, Vikings cut McNabb. Will he get in for this first pass ever being picked off, his other 90 batted passes, for the 8 screen passes he hit himself in the shoes with, or the time he completely folded up shop in the endzone and took a safety? Time will tell. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 12/01/2011 2:15:52 pm | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/01/2011 @ 03:13:36 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I haven't seen the Vikings play much this year, but I had no idea McNabb was that bad. I realize that the second video was a sample of probably his 5 or so worst passes, but I would venture to say that if you have 1 pass like that for an entire 16 game season your skills should be called into question. I'm guessing Tark ain't too worried about his place in Vikings history being overtaken. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 12/01/2011 @ 03:16:45 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I think the video is just one pass a few times, but that type of pass was anything but some crazy anomaly. He was that bad. Easily one or two of those a game, and if he didn't bounce it 5 yards short, he threw 10 yards out of bounds, or 10 feet over everyone's head. His rating wasn't terrible because he didn't throw picks, but he didn't throw picks because his passes were no where near anyone. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 12/01/2011 3:19:03 pm | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/01/2011 @ 03:24:09 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Why are we talking about the Vikings QB when clearly I posted some juicy Favre related content? If you've seen the Aaron Rodgers E:60 episode on ESPN, at one point he was talking about Favre, but he refused to mention him by name. I think he refered to him as "the former QB here" or something to that effect. I feel like in some ways, packer fans have turned the packers QBs into a Twilight saga (haven't watched a single second of any of the movies or read the books--side note: I did spend a night in Forks, WA this summer). It's like fans think you can only be for team Brett or team Aaron. Going back to my discussion with the in-laws when I was defending Favre, one of them asked me "what does Rodgers have to do for you to like him", as if I couldn't like Rodgers while simulteneously liking Favre. Anyway, that's generally why I prefer to watch packer games alone. I prefer intelligent commentary or none at all. (and by intelligent, I of course mean my own). |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 12/01/2011 3:25:18 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 12/01/2011 @ 03:37:48 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
I suppose you're looking for a more nuanced answer than "many packer fans are idiots"? Most of the time people tout fanaticism as a virtue, but fanatic + well thought out position are generally oil and water.  I can understand on some level the "jilted lover" reaction, though I think it went massively overboard. I guess it's kind of like if you cheated on Mellisa, and then her friends getting upset by that person who claims to still be equal pals with both sides, you can't stick with the cheater without "condoning it" on some level. Now, if Mellisa met some other guy that was just as good, you'd think those feelings would subside some, and you certainly wouldn't think "Friends with Scott" == "Hate the new guy," which I guess brings us back around to "Packer fans are idiots" and a shrug of the shoulders.  Edit: I think the more fanatical you get about a team, the more you forget what it's about. I know we've talked about this before, but many people think it's a huge breech in loyalty to be loyal to a player over/along with a team. You can't be a Favre fan and a Packer Fan, and any amount you are "Favre wherever he goes" fan is subtracted from any creditability you have earned as a Packer fan. People also see it as "Favre wasn't loyal to me" when, not only is that not a 2 way street, it should be exactly opposite. Spurning a player you idolized for most of your life and deciding to hate him as much as you loved him, and playing the "loyalty" card to justify it is comical to me. The fact that if the Packers and Vikings switched rosters tomorrow would only change the Franchise allegiances of about 10% of us isn't a virtue. It's a sad testament to how arbitrary it all is. If you're not loyal to the players, and grateful for the memories they brought you, you're just rooting for your favorite uniform. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/01/2011 3:50:42 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/01/2011 @ 03:49:01 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:37:48 PM I suppose you're looking for a more nuanced answer than "many packer fans are idiots"? No, that pretty much is my assessment of the situation too. When emotion mixes with reason, nobody wins it seems. One of the reasons why I wasn't supposed to like Favre was because he played for the Vikings. Am I supposed to hate Ryan Longwell because he played for the Vikings? I suppose one would argue that the emotional attachment to Favre is simply that great compared to any other ex-packer going anywhere else. But it's like the judgement clouded by the emotions makes it impossible to even concede that Favre was a good thing for the Packers even when he was here. For the longest time, it was Vikings/Bears/Cowboys/Eagles fans that would bring up the "he throws lots of interceptions" as to why fans from said teams wouldn't admit he was a good QB, while Packers fans quoted the litany of other stats that they felt more than made up for the interceptions. Now, it's Packer fans that will chide Favre for "throwing lots of interceptions" when someone like me tries to have an intelligent discussion about his abilities and worth as the Packers former QB. When Favre played his first game for the Vikings, I was happy for him, but at the same time I felt slightly betrayed. I even posted to facebook that I felt it was like watching a former girlfriend go out with another guy. I still wanted her(Favre, in this case) to be happy, but felt that the guy she (still favre) was with didn't deserve her. But at no point did I ever wish ill towards her. I guess I'm just more in control of my emtions than a lot of Packer fans. Rick Reilly makes some humorous, if not accurately descriptive analogies comparing Favre and Rodgers (look it up on ESPN.com), but he is dead wrong about having to choose between the two. Packer fans should be ashamed of themselves for being so out of touch with their emotions that they can continue to villify the QB that helped put green bay back on the map. I for one hope that time truly does heal all wounds. {/rant} |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 12/01/2011 3:49:25 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/01/2011 @ 03:55:42 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Also, to be fair, most people are idiots, and everyone is an idiot about something. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/01/2011 @ 04:03:35 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Plus, now that Favre retired [insert joke here]* it REALLY makes no sense. I suppose, as long as Favre is active, and you're continuing to root for him, on some level you're probably also saying "The ideal situation for me would be if this guy was still QB for my team." Though even then that isn't a "shot" at Rodgers, per se, it just at least has SOME aspect of mutual exclusivity to it. You can really really like your second favorite anything AND like your favorite a LOT more. *Edit: My second [insert] joke of the day. Two more today and I earn a free [insert something funny] |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 12/01/2011 4:35:30 pm | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/01/2011 @ 04:57:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I like ice cream. And I also like cake. Wait, you like ice cream? well, yeah, cake is my current favorite, but ice cream is pretty good too what can I do to get you to like cake? {facepalm} |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 12/01/2011 @ 05:17:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Also, Sarah and I have watched a couple of the Twilight movies. We watched 1 because it was such a big deal, and then the follow up 1 (or 2) out of boredom, because we saw the first one, and because Netflix has about 2 new movies a month. The Team Jacob/Team Edward thing is especially ridiculous because they do everything possible to make the character of Edward impossible to like, while Jacob does things like "actually be nice to Bella". So, basically it's just a case study in either a) how teen girls really DO like the brooding assholes for no reason b) teen girls think "vampire > everything" |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/01/2011 5:18:46 pm | ||
 | Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/01/2011 @ 06:00:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:08:30 PM Speaking of team-hall-of-fames, Vikings cut McNabb. Will he get in for this first pass ever being picked off, his other 90 batted passes, for the 8 screen passes he hit himself in the shoes with, or the time he completely folded up shop in the endzone and took a safety? Time will tell. I just heard McNabb saying why he wanted to be let go. So they have to pay this guy for being washed up? Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:24:09 PM Why are we talking about the Vikings QB when clearly I posted some juicy Favre related content? If you've seen the Aaron Rodgers E:60 episode on ESPN, at one point he was talking about Favre, but he refused to mention him by name. I think he refered to him as "the former QB here" or something to that effect. When was the E:60 episode made? Because Favre refused to call Rodgers by his name after a Packer Viking game and just called him "their QB" or something to that effect. Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:49:01 PM I guess I'm just more in control of my emtions than a lot of Packer fans. Rick Reilly makes some humorous, if not accurately descriptive analogies comparing Favre and Rodgers (look it up on ESPN.com), but he is dead wrong about having to choose between the two. I didn't like that article. It made it sound like all Favre supporters were horrible people. Not that I like Favre at all anymore, but still didn't like the article. Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:24:09 PM Anyway, that's generally why I prefer to watch packer games alone. I prefer intelligent commentary or none at all. (and by intelligent, I of course mean my own). I like to watch games by myself too, something we have in common... yikes! Although I do tweet a bit randomly during games, so maybe I'm not really watching the games alone. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:17:15 PM Also, Sarah and I have watched a couple of the Twilight movies. We watched 1 because it was such a big deal, and then the follow up 1 (or 2) out of boredom, because we saw the first one, and because Netflix has about 2 new movies a month. The Team Jacob/Team Edward thing is especially ridiculous because they do everything possible to make the character of Edward impossible to like, while Jacob does things like "actually be nice to Bella". So, basically it's just a case study in either a) how teen girls really DO like the brooding assholes for no reason b) teen girls think "vampire > everything" Twilight is so annoying because Bella sucks, like she can't make her own decisions and it's all about how she loves Edward so much even though they were together for like a day and she's willing to throw away all of her friends and family for this guy who threatens to kill her all the time. Now The Vampire Diaries, that's a whole other story! Epic! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Sarah messed with this at 12/01/2011 6:01:23 pm | ||
|
| Sarah - So's your face 12/01/2011 @ 06:53:48 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I don't like my Eagles pick AT ALL! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 12/01/2011 @ 08:16:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Fail |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 12/02/2011 @ 03:09:00 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Is Mellisa the woman who Scott left Melissa for? And are we really comparing football to marital infidelity? And should I really be taking the high ground when I just made a joke about it anyway? And whose family is it that doesn't like Favre? Or is it that Mellisa's family doesn't like Farve but likes Rogers? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/02/2011 @ 07:16:48 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - Today @ 03:09:00 AM Is Mellisa the woman who Scott left Melissa for? And are we really comparing football to marital infidelity? And should I really be taking the high ground when I just made a joke about it anyway? And whose family is it that doesn't like Favre? Or is it that Mellisa's family doesn't like Farve but likes Rogers? I see what you did here. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 12/02/2011 @ 07:20:49 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The conversation consisted of me, Melissa's brother and his wife, and a cousin of Melissa's. All were on the "how can you possibly like Favre" band. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 12/02/2011 @ 04:05:25 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
I can't believe I read all the posts on this thread. Wow.  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 12/02/2011 @ 08:18:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Word |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/02/2011 @ 08:44:34 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I don't get it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/04/2011 @ 05:36:46 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Fine I'll say it. If that Jennings touchdown wasn't a catch, than Jennings has learned Jedi mind tricks. Before he was touched, he let go of the ball with his right hand, and the ball still did not move. That seems like pretty obvious control to me. And he had taken about 4 steps before being touched and he wasn't going to the ground. I think it was a good call, but my lack of belief in mind control is clouded by my packer glasses. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 12/04/2011 @ 06:22:36 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Dallas end of game management epic fail. 17s and 2 timeouts with a 49yd field goal in hand and you just let the clock run down (to 7s, which is pretty random) and then spike it, then go for the fg but you ice your own kicker, who misses his second try? I hope they get the ball back because I could use some points from L. Robinson. Or that could happen. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/05/2011 @ 01:03:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
For what it's worth, NFC North Blogger Kevin Seifert gives his take on the Jennings catch here. Seifert, who formerly covered the Vikings with the Star Tribune, is of the opinion that the call was correct. 3.Receiver Greg Jennings' juggling 20-yard touchdown in the third quarter stirred some debate, but referee Jeff Triplette got the call right. First, in a nuance that I myself had to brush up on, the so-called "process" requirement only applies in instances when the receiver falls to the ground, which Jennings did not. Second, Jennings intentionally used his left hand to secure the ball and didn't want to move it close to his body for fear it would appear as though he didn't have control. Here's how Jennings put it: "I was able to catch the ball, and I caught it on my fingertips, and all I could think was, 'Don't let the ball move.' I didn’t want to pull it in, I didn't want to do anything. I'm thinking, 'Don't let the ball move.'" It worked. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 12/05/2011 1:04:36 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 12/05/2011 @ 09:15:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The Packers eeked out another one thanks to being on the winning end of every review, 3 of them scoring plays, one wrong, that iffy play, and one that stood possibly only because, despite being 2011 and that being a nearly national game, it was the one play since the mid 70's only caught from one angle. Must be nice. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/05/2011 @ 10:19:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Yup. Besides, you can't even tell if his knee is touching the ground yet in that picture you linked. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 12/05/2011 10:20:54 pm | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/05/2011 @ 10:36:55 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I dvr'd the game and just watched the replay over and over in super slow-mo in hd. That picture you showed is hard to tell, but the replay from that angle makes it look like his knee doesn't make impact until its partially on the white. You can see his thigh start to ripple a bit because of the impact. An even better angle is from behind and it is almost certainly the case that his knee hit white exactly at the same as it hit the blue. You can actually see the white elastic band of his white pants (the band just below his knee) bunch up when it digs into the turf, and by this point his knee is clearly in the white, at least partially.your picture isn't an accurate description, and the call was correct. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 12/05/2011 10:38:19 pm | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/05/2011 @ 10:54:19 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| And as far as the score that had only one angle, I'm assuming you mean drivers touchdown where he came close to stepping out of the endzone about 6 seconds bfore the ball was thrown his way. Do you really expect them to have numerous angles of every player when their actions at the time have nothing to do with the ball? There were numerous angles of the touchdown catch itself, but only one angle of driver prior to the ball being thrown his way. I'm not sure what's so unusual about that. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/06/2011 @ 12:47:54 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
They don't send cameras back in time to get 5 angles of the guys running routes, holding calls, and whatnot after they deem that the relevant route when the player catches the ball. They had one angle of a play in the endzone. Yes, that is odd, or at the very least, potentially fortunate. I think "my picture" is fairly clear. I mean, obviously it's not proof positive, but it's pretty clear he's down there. By the time you see rippling or "bunching" his knee could be down for who knows how long. Either way in multiple cases you're talking fractions of seconds and all really only going your way because they were called your way in the first place, which could also just as easily have not been the case. Again, must be nice. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 12/06/2011 12:55:48 am | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/06/2011 @ 07:47:55 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| For what it's worth, I believe the refs use one of three phrases when addressinig a replay review. Overturned means overturned. If the call is going to remain the same, they will say a) "the ruling on the field stands", or b)"the ruling on the field is confirmed". A) indicates that they found no video evidence to determine that the call should be something other than what was called. B) indicates that the referee saw conclusive evidence that the call made on the field was indeed correct. The Knee-gate catch was addressed as "confirmed". So in theory, the ref would have reversed the call had it been ruled a catch since he indicated by his verbage that the replay was conclusive. That was his opinion anyway. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/06/2011 @ 08:13:03 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:47:54 AM I think "my picture" is fairly clear. I mean, obviously it's not proof positive, but it's pretty clear he's down there. By the time you see rippling or "bunching" his knee could be down for who knows how long. I don't know that this picture is conclusive either. First of all, you have a very dark blue endzone color and a dark shadow obscuring the point of emphasis. Is his knee actually down there? It's hard to tell. Even still, it almost looks even by this picture that his knee is already touching white anyway. If I had two frames prior and two or so frames afterwards, as in you know the actual replay instead of a single out of context photo, then maybe. The forensic evidence makes me think that the visibal impact on his knee and his pant leg would be pretty much simultaneous. Either way, your point is that it was a really close call among many that went the packers way. True, a number of high profile close calls went the Packers way (correctly, in my opinion, but their way nonetheless). Point conceded. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/06/2011 @ 08:28:31 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The packers lost 6 games last year by 4 points or less. The breaks tend to even out over time. Except that I suppose the Packers never are victims of bad breaks. They are only ever the beneficiary of them. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 12/06/2011 @ 09:51:50 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
Ah yes, last year, when they needed 2-3 weeks of games to break almost perfectly to slide into the playoffs, where they proceeded to win the Superbowl. Tough break.  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/06/2011 @ 10:48:47 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, they also had 15 guys on IR. They had their share of bad breaks. When you win, the breaks always seem to go your way. When you lose, the breaks always seem to go against you. You don't win 18 in a row without a few breaks going in your favor, but they probably had some bad breaks that they overcame. You don't lose a lot of games without having some breaks go against you, but bad teams can let good breaks slip away. The packers are beating opponents by an average of 14 points. It takes more than a couple good breaks here and there to derail something that big. And their "good breaks" are probably just magnified by the fact that they are always winning. When they get a bad break and win anyway, it is brushed off as irrelevant or inconsequential, when in fact a bad team probably doesn't overcome that bad break. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/06/2011 @ 11:02:25 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Here's a good example of overcoming a bad break and making it inconsequential, not because it didnt' affect the outcome, but because the team was good enough to overcome it. On the kickoff for the last drive that the Giants ended up scoring a touchdown on, Crosby kicked an intentional pop-up. The guy who recieved the kick put his hand up over his head and waived it a little bit. Now, it is likely that he was simply telling his teammates "i got it" like a center fielder would, but according to Mike Pereira (the former official that gives analysis on rulings), that ball by rule should have been blown dead. He raised his hand above his shoulder and waived it. What if the Packers, knowing how the NFL likes to penalize teams for hitting a punt returner who signaled a fair catch, just stopped playing as soon as he caught it? Maybe some of them did? What if that play had resulted in a long kick return? I would say that in some way they are lucky that it didn't, but maybe part of the Packers being as good as they are is being aware enough not to assume anything. Maybe the 2011 colts let that player catch the ball and then just stop playing. I know that the Giants eventually scored on that drive and the Packers then scored to win essentially making it a moot point, but why is that not considered a bad break? If a team wins, does that make all the bad breaks moot because they won anyway and now we are free to only point out the good breaks (i'm not talking specifically about the Giants game regarding the previous sentence, but it has some relevance here as well)? It could have been huge, and maybe the fact that it didn't turn out that bad for the Packers is because they are actually that good. Maybe the reason bad teams seem to get all the bad breaks is because they are just that bad. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
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....
Eagles 14 @ Seahawks 31
Jeremy
Go TJack.Sarah
Who knows? Looking at all of these games, I just have no clue.Jon
Marshawn Lynch will run and run and run and maybe grab.