NFL 2011 Season Week 15 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 14 @ Falcons 41
Final
Thu, 12/15/11 7:20pm
0 Picks - 0% 18 Picks - 100%
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Cowboys 31 @ Buccaneers 15
Final
Sat, 12/17/11 7:20pm
17 Picks - 85% 3 Picks - 15%
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Cowboys
Seahawks 38 @ Bears 14
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
7 Picks - 33% 14 Picks - 67%
Bears
Bears
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Bears
Bears
Panthers 28 @ Texans 13
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
1 Pick - 5% 20 Picks - 95%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Redskins 23 @ Giants 10
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 21 Picks - 100%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Saints 42 @ Vikings 20
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
19 Picks - 90% 2 Picks - 10%
Saints
Saints
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Saints
Saints
Packers 14 @ Chiefs 19
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
20 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Dolphins 30 @ Bills 23
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
9 Picks - 43% 12 Picks - 57%
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Dolphins
Dolphins
Bills
Bills
Titans 13 @ Colts 27
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
21 Picks - 100% 0 Picks - 0%
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Titans
Bengals 20 @ Rams 13
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 12:00pm
19 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Lions 28 @ Raiders 27
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 3:05pm
16 Picks - 76% 5 Picks - 24%
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Lions
Jets 19 @ Eagles 45
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 3:15pm
16 Picks - 76% 5 Picks - 24%
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Browns 17 @ Cardinals 20
final overtime
Sun, 12/18/11 3:15pm
0 Picks - 0% 21 Picks - 100%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Patriots 41 @ Broncos 23
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 3:15pm
15 Picks - 75% 5 Picks - 25%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Broncos
Broncos
Ravens 14 @ Chargers 34
Final
Sun, 12/18/11 7:20pm
17 Picks - 81% 4 Picks - 19%
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Ravens
Chargers
Chargers
Ravens
Ravens
Steelers 3 @ 49ers 20
Final
Mon, 12/19/11 7:30pm
8 Picks - 38% 13 Picks - 62%
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
49ers
Steelers
Steelers
Week Record8 - 8
0.500
8 - 8
0.500
10 - 6
0.625
6 - 10
0.375
Worst Place
Season Record140 - 84
0.625
124 - 100
0.554
138 - 86
0.616
150 - 74
0.670
Scotttime Record969 - 589
0.622
931 - 627
0.598
965 - 593
0.619
984 - 574
0.632
No-Pack-Vike Record2517 - 1476
0.630
2447 - 1546
0.613
2530 - 1463
0.634
2492 - 1501
0.624
Lifetime Record1646 - 979
0.627
1542 - 1083
0.587
1635 - 990
0.623
1643 - 982
0.626
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Broncos
Ravens
49ers

Week:7 - 9
0.438
Season:141 - 83
0.629
Lifetime:981 - 572
0.632
newalex.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Raiders
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
49ers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:144 - 80
0.643
Lifetime:964 - 592
0.620
images.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Raiders
Eagles
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
Steelers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:136 - 87
0.610
Lifetime:860 - 564
0.604
l_ad719f619e5ad7f4b593814445bf63ec.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Seahawks
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Eagles
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
Steelers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:151 - 73
0.674
Lifetime:756 - 463
0.620
pyzamOmgWtf.jpg
Falcons
Buccaneers
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:7 - 9
0.438
Season:139 - 81
0.632
Lifetime:560 - 325
0.633
me.png
Falcons
Cowboys
Seahawks
Panthers
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:147 - 77
0.656
Lifetime:530 - 339
0.610
picture07.bmp
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:141 - 81
0.635
Lifetime:633 - 352
0.643
FB_IMG_1499398490950.jpg
Falcons
Buccaneers
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Eagles
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:138 - 86
0.616
Lifetime:466 - 291
0.616
question_mark.gif
JAC @ ATL - No Pick
Cowboys
Seahawks
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:9 - 6
0.600
Season:109 - 66
0.623
Lifetime:394 - 237
0.624
question_mark.gif
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
GB @ KC - No Pick
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Eagles
Cardinals
NE @ DEN - No Pick
Chargers
Steelers

Week:8 - 6
0.571
Season:138 - 71
0.660
Lifetime:451 - 240
0.653
Me at sams.jpg
JAC @ ATL - No Pick
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
CIN @ LA - No Pick
Raiders
Jets
Cardinals
Broncos
Ravens
Steelers

Week:3 - 11
0.214
Season:107 - 61
0.637
Lifetime:245 - 160
0.605
hambone.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Seahawks
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Chargers
Steelers

Week:10 - 6
0.625
Season:151 - 73
0.674
Lifetime:318 - 173
0.648
077.JPG
Falcons
Cowboys
Seahawks
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Broncos
Ravens
49ers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:143 - 81
0.638
Lifetime:238 - 150
0.613
IMG003.jpg
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
Steelers

Week:8 - 8
0.500
Season:146 - 78
0.652
Lifetime:225 - 121
0.650
ColorTouch.jpg
Falcons
Buccaneers
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Bills
Titans
Bengals
Raiders
Jets
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:6 - 10
0.375
Season:118 - 76
0.608
Lifetime:118 - 76
0.608
question_mark.gif
Falcons
Cowboys
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Bengals
Raiders
Jets
Cardinals
Broncos
Ravens
Steelers

Week:6 - 10
0.375
Season:124 - 69
0.642
Lifetime:124 - 69
0.642
krystal.jpg
JAC @ ATL - No Pick
DAL @ TB - No Pick
Bears
Texans
Giants
Saints
Packers
Dolphins
Titans
Rams
Lions
Eagles
Cardinals
Patriots
Ravens
49ers

Week:7 - 7
0.500
Season:7 - 7
0.500
Lifetime:7 - 7
0.500
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Jaguars 14 @ Falcons 41

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Everyone have their shopping done?
jon.jpg
Jon
You know who's had an impressive career? Tony Gonzalez. You might not have known that.

Cowboys 31 @ Buccaneers 15

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Make it 3 in a row!
jon.jpg
Jon
Is this a Saturday Night game or something? Why am I commenting on this game?

Saints 42 @ Vikings 20

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Domes.
jon.jpg
Jon
The Vikings are exactly the kind of team that beats the Saints. I mean, except that the Saints' quarterback is excellent and the Vikings can't stop the pass.

Packers 14 @ Chiefs 19

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Focus people, focus! I don't think the Packers have that great of a record at Arrowhead.
jon.jpg
Jon
Is Greg Jennings making the trip? I'd suggest he go. You don't want to miss a Stroud's opportunity.

Ravens 14 @ Chargers 34

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Ray Rice for 300 yards!
jon.jpg
Jon
Joe Flacco only wins at home. This game will be played on the other side of the country.

Steelers 3 @ 49ers 20

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Maybe Roethlisberger will injure his other leg. 49ers are fallin' apart!
jon.jpg
Jon
Gold over steel? Lame, I know, but I'm practically phoning these in at this point anyway.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/13/2011 @ 09:09:26 AM
 Quote this comment
I guess you can call me a Tebow Believer*. Actually, it's more about the Bronco's defense being able to stop the Patriots and the Patriots defense being bad enough to allow a mediocre passer to do just enough to win.

*don't ever call me that, please.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
12/13/2011 @ 09:18:17 AM
 Quote this comment
I also noticed that no one complained (except Jon once on Twitter) about the blatant lack of a facemask call on the last play of the game that would have given the vikings another chance to win it. I assume that deep down (and Jeremy alluded to this in a tweet as well), Viking fans are secretly (if not outwardly) hoping for losses to secure a more favorable draft position. I can't blame you. I felt the same way in 2005 when the Packers were at 3 wins with 2 games to play.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 12/13/2011 9:18:29 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
12/13/2011 @ 11:41:01 AM
 Quote this comment
I had mixed feelings about them scoring there, but mainly I didn't mention it because I would have been more shocked if something like that didn't happen. When nothing ever goes your way, it's hard to pick one thing to complain about.
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.
12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/14/2011 10:15:09 am
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
12/17/2011 @ 07:31:08 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.

I do what I do when I do what I do.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 08:15:29 AM
 Quote this comment
Prediction: 63-2 Packers. And the 2 points comes when Aaron Rodgers falls asleep in the endzone in the third qtr out of boredom.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
12/18/2011 @ 11:28:01 AM
 Quote this comment
ESPN has dedicated probably 45% (and I might be going with the under) of their so-far 90 minute NFL countdown broadcast to Tim Tebow. And they had about 2 minutes on the Packers in that span. Just saying.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - 4091 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 11:41:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Yea, that's why I've been switching back and forth a lot this morning. It's a bit ridiculous. I'm good with the Packers being under the radar. Anyone else enjoy the Tebow SNL skit last night?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
12/18/2011 @ 01:07:56 PM
 Quote this comment
Interesting stat: Matt's only picked the Packers 6 other times. He's 4 and 2.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 03:11:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Does this loss hurt? Nah. It's not the playoffs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
12/18/2011 @ 03:31:07 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:11:57 PM
Does this loss hurt? Nah. It's not the playoffs.


It hurts in the sense that we can never seem to win in Kansas City and we broke a huge winning streak. (would've been nice to beat the Patriot's streak) I feel better getting a loss now, fixing things in the last 2 games, and heading into the playoffs strong.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3355 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 03:57:51 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:07:56 PM
Interesting stat: Matt's only picked the Packers 6 other times. He's 4 and 2.


I'm taking credit for the Chiefs win this week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 04:25:11 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 03:31:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:11:57 PM
Does this loss hurt? Nah. It's not the playoffs.


It hurts in the sense that we can never seem to win in Kansas City and we broke a huge winning streak. (would've been nice to beat the Patriot's streak) I feel better getting a loss now, fixing things in the last 2 games, and heading into the playoffs strong.


Maybe taucher can come off the couch and play RT again.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
12/18/2011 @ 04:42:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:57:51 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:07:56 PM
Interesting stat: Matt's only picked the Packers 6 other times. He's 4 and 2.


I'm taking credit for the Chiefs win this week.


Better than giving the Chiefs credit I suppose...
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - How do you use these things?
12/18/2011 @ 08:42:54 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.

You jinxed me. Totally blew it this week.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
12/19/2011 @ 04:11:09 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:42:54 PM
Scott Wrote - 12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.

You jinxed me. Totally blew it this week.
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 08:15:29 AM
Prediction: 63-2 Packers. And the 2 points comes when Aaron Rodgers falls asleep in the endzone in the third qtr out of boredom.


Looks like Scott was a jinx machine. You know, if you believe in that.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - infinity + 1 posts
12/19/2011 @ 04:14:04 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:31:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:11:57 PM
Does this loss hurt? Nah. It's not the playoffs.


It hurts in the sense that we can never seem to win in Kansas City and we broke a huge winning streak. (would've been nice to beat the Patriot's streak) I feel better getting a loss now, fixing things in the last 2 games, and heading into the playoffs strong.


I only mean this half out of jerkiness and half seriously. But "fixing things in the last 2 games" isn't really contingent on a loss and it's not a guaranteed outcome now that they do have the loss.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 4091 Posts
12/19/2011 @ 07:17:23 AM
 Quote this comment
I disagree. Their weaknesses were exposed and they have to correct for that. Of course if it means they just need some key plAyers back, then we might be in trouble. I'd also change the ratio to 80/20.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/19/2011 @ 07:42:48 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:17:23 AM
I disagree. Their weaknesses were exposed and they have to correct for that. Of course if it means they just need some key plAyers back, then we might be in trouble. I'd also change the ratio to 80/20.

You mean the weaknesses that everyone knew about since about week 3? And if by exposed you mean somehow the chiefs caused the Packers to drop about 12 passes and the chiefs knew that whacking the Packers right tackles would be a good game plant, then exposed they were. If it weren't for all the dropped passes, the game turns out differently. I don't think this is anytime to panic, but I've learned over the course of this that for some reason panic is something Packer fans excel at.

Of course, injuries to their Oline certainly don't help.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 12/19/2011 7:57:10 am
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/19/2011 @ 01:10:45 PM
 Quote this comment
I thought the play calling was bad. Kuhn had 2 carries for 0 yards. I hate the fullback dive, but on 3rd and 1 when the defense is all in the line of scrimmage I reallllllllly hate it. Meanwhile, Grant had 12 for 66 yards, Jennings was out, it was windy, nobody could catch the ball, the Chiefs were getting pressure rushing 4, the Oline had injuries, and the Chiefs were dominating TOP. Hmmm...maybe the Packers should've run more?
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.
12/19/2011 @ 01:55:32 PM
 Quote this comment
One of the writers for Packers.com addressed a question similar to this. While to some degree I thought he was being a little to harsh, his response was that the packers are a pass first team, and suddently turning into a running team would be to drastically change who they are. Grant was running pretty well, so it is a bit surprising that they backed off the run in the second half. But, they also were playing from behind the whole game, so running the ball in the second half was less likely to continue. Had they been ahead, perhaps they would have continued to pound it on the ground. But they were playing catch up, and the Packers best game plan for scoring points has all season been through the air.

All that being said, the Chiefs were very effective in their man-to-man coverage. Finley basically said after the game that the way to render him ineffective was to play man-to-man and play it well against him. Although, to be fair about the whole run-the-ball-more-or-pass-the-ball-more, the Packers were down to about 6 olinemen total and they only had 1 tackle left active after bulaga and sherrod went down. They may not have had much success running the ball after that anyway.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - How do you use these things?
12/19/2011 @ 07:53:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:42:48 AM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:17:23 AM
I disagree. Their weaknesses were exposed and they have to correct for that. Of course if it means they just need some key plAyers back, then we might be in trouble. I'd also change the ratio to 80/20.

You mean the weaknesses that everyone knew about since about week 3? And if by exposed you mean somehow the chiefs caused the Packers to drop about 12 passes and the chiefs knew that whacking the Packers right tackles would be a good game plant, then exposed they were. If it weren't for all the dropped passes, the game turns out differently. I don't think this is anytime to panic, but I've learned over the course of this that for some reason panic is something Packer fans excel at.

Of course, injuries to their Oline certainly don't help.

I was speaking more about the defense, the Kansas City offense made them look silly.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/19/2011 @ 09:07:18 PM
 Quote this comment
I can't find a website for it, but the Sporting News predicted in their 2011 NFL preview issue that the Packers would go 15-1 and that the one loss would be to the Chiefs. Weird.

edit: found someone who took a picture of their issue:
2011-12-18_18-50-38_617.jpg2011-12-18_18-50-30_174.jpg"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 6 times, last at 12/19/2011 9:11:40 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - How do you use these things?
12/19/2011 @ 09:24:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Interesting, they must have visited the future. #mostlikelyexplanation
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/19/2011 @ 09:25:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Interesting week of games. The Packer, Giants, and unanimous picks, and all three of them lost. And the Titans were picked by all but one person, and they lost as well.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/19/2011 @ 09:38:24 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 09:24:10 PM
Interesting, they must have visited the future. #mostlikelyexplanation


Clearly they had Marty's Gray's Sports Almanac (the updated version) at their disposal.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 12/19/2011 9:38:58 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/19/2011 @ 11:03:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.


Is she? emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 12/19/2011 11:16:04 pm
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
12/20/2011 @ 03:47:58 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:55:32 PM
...But, they also were playing from behind the whole game, so running the ball in the second half was less likely to continue. Had they been ahead, perhaps they would have continued to pound it on the ground. But they were playing catch up, and the Packers best game plan for scoring points has all season been through the air....


Playing from behind? They were trailing from early on, but was the deficit ever even equal to a touchdown except for the very end? Abandoning the run when you're down 6 doesn't seem like a valid explanation to me. Granted, I've actually told people seriously (ok maybe 80-20 serious/joking) that the Packers should never run the ball. And for most of the season, it seemed like that made sense. But if running is clearly working better, it seems like maybe they should consider it. But honestly, I watched the Packers between plays of the Vikings game, so I can't really comment on specifics.


Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:07:18 PM
I can't find a website for it, but the Sporting News predicted in their 2011 NFL preview issue that the Packers would go 15-1 and that the one loss would be to the Chiefs. Weird.


I knew they picked them to be 15-1 but I couldn't remember who they had beating them. I figured it would have been the Bears. Kind of strange that it is the Chiefs, but they were a little better last year.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Resident Tech Support
12/20/2011 @ 07:20:15 AM
 Quote this comment
Jon Wrote - Today @ 03:47:58 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:55:32 PM
...But, they also were playing from behind the whole game, so running the ball in the second half was less likely to continue. Had they been ahead, perhaps they would have continued to pound it on the ground. But they were playing catch up, and the Packers best game plan for scoring points has all season been through the air....


Playing from behind? They were trailing from early on, but was the deficit ever even equal to a touchdown except for the very end? Abandoning the run when you're down 6 doesn't seem like a valid explanation to me. Granted, I've actually told people seriously (ok maybe 80-20 serious/joking) that the Packers should never run the ball. And for most of the season, it seemed like that made sense. But if running is clearly working better, it seems like maybe they should consider it. But honestly, I watched the Packers between plays of the Vikings game, so I can't really comment on specifics.


While you are probably right that being down by 2-6 points probably doesn't warrant abandoning something that was working, I would hardly call "returning to the gameplan that has won us 19 games in a row" abandoning anything. Running the ball looked effective, but passing the ball is what got them where they are. Go home with the girl you brought to the dance, right?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6225 Posts
12/20/2011 @ 07:22:41 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:03:23 PM
Scott Wrote - 12/14/2011 @ 10:12:06 AM
I'm certainly not catching Sarah this week. We have all the same picks except for the 49ers steelers game. Boo.

And it should be noted, while I have a higher lifetime winning percentage than any of the Senior NutCanners, I am picking higher this season than my lifetime average. It should put into context the outstanding season Sarah is having that she is even higher than that. She is besting the best emoticon.


Is she? emoticon


In biblical times, farmers would let the land recover every 7 years and not plant or harvest from it.

So in other words, I have no idea.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 12/20/2011 7:23:34 am
2887.gifAlex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose
12/20/2011 @ 01:26:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:20:15 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 03:47:58 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:55:32 PM
...But, they also were playing from behind the whole game, so running the ball in the second half was less likely to continue. Had they been ahead, perhaps they would have continued to pound it on the ground. But they were playing catch up, and the Packers best game plan for scoring points has all season been through the air....


Playing from behind? They were trailing from early on, but was the deficit ever even equal to a touchdown except for the very end? Abandoning the run when you're down 6 doesn't seem like a valid explanation to me. Granted, I've actually told people seriously (ok maybe 80-20 serious/joking) that the Packers should never run the ball. And for most of the season, it seemed like that made sense. But if running is clearly working better, it seems like maybe they should consider it. But honestly, I watched the Packers between plays of the Vikings game, so I can't really comment on specifics.


While you are probably right that being down by 2-6 points probably doesn't warrant abandoning something that was working, I would hardly call "returning to the gameplan that has won us 19 games in a row" abandoning anything. Running the ball looked effective, but passing the ball is what got them where they are. Go home with the girl you brought to the dance, right?


No, play to win. (It's more like the girl you brought to the dance sprained her ankle, and she doesn't care if you dance with another girl, but you insist that you want to dance with her and of course you lose the dance off then, when instead you could have danced with Cha Cha and won.)

Also to refute your implied hypothesis that pass blocking is easier for a beat up offensive line than run blocking, I present to you some expert opinions to the contrary: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081111150605AAJaG94
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
12/20/2011 @ 01:33:34 PM
 Quote this comment
I wasn't implying anything of the sort. They are a pass first team. The only thing they were at risk of abandoning was the pass, which would be to say they would have panicked if they suddenly decided to be a run-first team. They had won 19 straight games in all sort of weather conditions and defensive schemes by utilizing the very same scheme that they (apparently insanely, in some people's eyes) continued to use against the Chiefs. You don't suddenly change everything because it was a bit of a struggle initially.

And I didn't say you only dance with the girl you brought. But you'd be a jerk to take a different girl home just because she was a little banged up. Sleezeball of the year would go to that person.

edit: Basically it comes down to this. The Chiefs had a very good gameplan in place, and it required a lot of things to go right (they only won by 5 points). It took near perfect execution on their part. And, the big thing was because the offensive line got so banged up during the game, the Chiefs game plan worked even better. They almost never blitzed duringi the game, bringing only 3 or 4 rushers on 80% of plays. They were essentially banking on letting Rodgers have time but covering the receivers like blankets. Well, with losing 40% of your O-Line during the game, suddenly the thing the Chiefs were sort of "sacrificing" became a huge strength. So now they are getting tremendous pressure as well as blanket coverage. To me it was sort of a perfect storm for the Chiefs, who played (according to them) the best game of their season (some said it was the best game they've ever been a part of), and still only won by 5.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 12/20/2011 1:40:13 pm
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
12/20/2011 @ 03:17:28 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:34 PM
I wasn't implying anything of the sort.


Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:55:32 PM
Although, to be fair about the whole run-the-ball-more-or-pass-the-ball-more, the Packers were down to about 6 olinemen total and they only had 1 tackle left active after bulaga and sherrod went down. They may not have had much success running the ball after that anyway.


That's what I got out of this. I took this as, "They should keep passing every play because they might not be able to run as well as they had" and my counter point is that with a banged up offensive line the efficiency of the passing game deteriorates more than the running game. So the 5.5 yard per carry might have dropped down to 4, but that would be better than a sack and two incomplete passes.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:34 PM
And I didn't say you only dance with the girl you brought. But you'd be a jerk to take a different girl home just because she was a little banged up. Sleezeball of the year would go to that person.


Well, they did end up taking home a different girl. They brought Win and they took home Loss.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:33:34 PM
edit: Basically it comes down to this. The Chiefs had a very good gameplan in place, and it required a lot of things to go right (they only won by 5 points). It took near perfect execution on their part. And, the big thing was because the offensive line got so banged up during the game, the Chiefs game plan worked even better. They almost never blitzed duringi the game, bringing only 3 or 4 rushers on 80% of plays. They were essentially banking on letting Rodgers have time but covering the receivers like blankets. Well, with losing 40% of your O-Line during the game, suddenly the thing the Chiefs were sort of "sacrificing" became a huge strength. So now they are getting tremendous pressure as well as blanket coverage. To me it was sort of a perfect storm for the Chiefs, who played (according to them) the best game of their season (some said it was the best game they've ever been a part of), and still only won by 5.


I don't disagree with anything in this paragraph, but I think it was up to McCarthy to realize all of these points during half time and instead of just saying, "We're a passing team, so that's all we're doing come hell or high water" he should have said, "Maybe we should try to pound them with the run a little bit since it's been effective today and the Chiefs are playing to stop the pass". Actually going to back to the first drive of the second half, that is what he did, 3 runs in a row to get to 3rd and 1. But then he called that epic fail fullback dive and after that they only ran the ball 4 more times. So he had the right idea, I just blame that one play for killing that drive and his confidence in the running game.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
12/20/2011 @ 04:06:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, to my point about them being better passing/running the ball with banged up offensive line, I'll say this: They are an infinitely better passing team than they are running team. So if their offensive line is banged up bigtime, I would suspect that if both running and passing games decline as a result, I still have confidence in their passing game to get by, where their already suspect running game might disappear altogether. Clearly neither worked out that well.

It's not like I was saying that since they have a banged up O-Line that they better pass the ball because running the ball is generally too difficult with a make-shift line. I would bet that both would take a hit. So then I would rely on my potentially MVP quarterback rather than my rather pedestrian running back to over come it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
12/20/2011 @ 05:05:17 PM
 Quote this comment
By my count it was 24 pass plays to 4 rushing after the fullback dive. I'm not saying it should have been opposite of that (or anywhere near it), but that's a bit pass heavy when the passing game isn't working as well as usual.

Also, looking through the plays, the other spot that I really didn't agree with was on the first play of the 4th quarter. They threw an incomplete pass (deep to Finley) on 3rd and 8, then went for it on 4th down from the KC 39. Score was 7-9. It was windy, but maybe a 4 yd run brings a FG into play (or a fake?), or at least gives you 4th and 4.
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.