NFL 2012 Season Super Bowl Picks

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 01/25/2013 @ 02:01:11 PM
It's up.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 01/25/2013 @ 02:11:56 PM
If the 49ers win, I wonder if Jim will shake John's hand so hard that they come to blows right there on the field. If I was coaching or playing against my brother, and he came up to me after the game and give me one of these "I'm so better than you" hand shakes, the real rumble would commence thence-after.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/02/2013 @ 06:29:46 PM
So.... Cris Carter finally got into the HOF. Let this be a lesson, don't be a jerk and maybe you'll get your just rewards faster. Or whatever.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 02/02/2013 @ 08:00:06 PM
Good day to be a Viking fan, funny how that comes on a Saturday, am I right? In other news, seeing pictures of Rodgers and Favre together on one stage is slightly mind blowing. Favre has aged!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 02/02/2013 @ 11:44:27 PM
Please tell me this comment was a joke. Sarah Wrote - Today @ 06:29:46 PM So.... Cris Carter finally got into the HOF. Let this be a lesson, don't be a jerk and maybe you'll get your just rewards faster. Or whatever. Is that why Warren Sapp got in so quickly? And Bill Parcells? Their waits combined don't equal the amount of time it took to elect Carter. BTW, "just rewards" and the NFL HOF have little to do with each other. Even in the context of HOFs.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this at 02/02/2013 11:44:49 pm

	Sarah - So's your face 02/03/2013 @ 07:59:02 AM
It was tongue in cheek. I still have no idea why it took so long for him to get in and have always commented on the fact.. Puzzling. I do know that when he got in all the reporters seemed to make comments that alluded to the fact that he was not nice to them. But that shouldn't take away from what he did on the field. But take it how you will apparently.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Sarah messed with this at 02/03/2013 8:01:25 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/03/2013 @ 09:01:21 AM
Maybe it was because he was a jerk who didn't win a Super Bowl. (that's tongue in cheek too, by the way) Apparently, winning a Super Bowl can cover all ills and is a semi-requirement for being "great", or at least that's how the NFL voices make it seem.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/03/2013 @ 09:07:51 AM
In a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Packers were one pick away from selecting Ray Lewis in the 1996 draft, and Ron Wolf was convinced that Lewis was going to fall to them. He even told Lewis while Baltimore was on the clock that the Packers were going to pick him because there is no way Baltimore is going to draft a middle linebacker. That really makes you think how the future would have been different for the Packers. They probably win Super Bowl 32 having a linebacker that could have stopped Terrell Davis. And who knows what the next decade would have brought. One can imagine.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 02/03/2013 @ 09:46:21 AM
Pass.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/04/2013 @ 10:45:17 AM
I'm curious what everyone thinks about the "non-call" of holding or pass interference on the 4th and goal at the five at the end of the game that could have given the 49ers a first down. The consensi (consensusses?) from all the talking heads both in the booth and analysts everywhere seemed to be the same old tired argument about "letting the players play" or "you can't call that at this point of the game" or "the 49ers can't expect to be bailed out by the refs". To me, this is the exact thing that Jon pointed out in his Worst Ideas article about calling the game differently at the end of the game. To me it seemed like a fairly obvious holding or pass intereference call. Even the play by play guys broke it down and verbally pointed out that there was definite contact initiated by the defender well beyond the 5 yard window, but then proceeded to justify the non-call simply because of the magnitude of the moment. To me that seems patently unfair to the person whom the action is inhibitting. People were saying that the 49ers can't expect to be "bailed out by the refs", but why is someone committing a penalty and calling the game correct considered being "bailed out?" (The offensive lineman picked up the defender and carried him off the field and the refs threw a flag for holding. Man, the defense really got bailed out by that holding call there, Jim). Like Jeremy likes to say, it's either holding or it's not. The situation in which it occurs should have nothing to do with whether or not a call should be made. I can't fault the defender for doing what he did, because if he doesn't, there is a decent chance that ball is a caught for a touchdown. But how do you justify calling out the 49ers for wanting to get "bailed out" when the defense performed an illegal action that intentionally inhibitted the receiver from carrying out his play. Saying you have to let the players play it out on the field is the worst argument ever when one of those players essentially is cheating. That's why football has rules. (I don't care necessarily about any other call/non-call at the moment. If there were other calls that evened this one out, fine, but that's not the point. The point is that defending this non-call by saying "let the boys play" or "don't whine when the refs don't bail you out" is the most asinine analysis anyone could think of. The call is either wrong or it's right, not "wrong, but..." If you think the non-call was correct because the contact wasn't that bad or it was two sided or whatever, fine. But "it was correct because this is the Super Bowl" isn't a valid reason.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3375 Posts 02/04/2013 @ 10:13:32 PM
Yeah I think it was holding. I haven't read much beyond headlines about the reaction to it, but yeah the "swallow the whistles" argument is ridiculous. From the other end though, it sucks that it happened on a play that would tilt the game either way, but 49ers fans and players, etc. don't need to dwell on it as THE reason they lost. It's one reason, but just one of many.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 02/10/2013 @ 09:37:02 AM
No football today. Now is the winter of our discontent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/12/2013 @ 02:02:21 PM
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8940414/nfl-mulling-super-bowl-xlviii-backup-plans-report It almost pains me to say it, but Skip and Steven A. seem to have done the impossible. 1) they agreed on something. 2) they formed coherent arguments void of yelling, childishness, insults, and the like. And 3) I actually agree with it. Basically, they are addressing the topic of a Super Bowl in New York, and both agree that the Super Bowl shouldn't be in a cold whether climate unless it's a domed stadium. They say that the Super Bowl should be as neutral as possible, and that you shouldn't put it in a place where whether could likely be a problem . And they also, in my opinion, make very good arguments about how this is unique to the Super Bowl, and not to playoff games; teams earn the right to play at home in their climate to play to represent their conference in the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl is now a faceoff of the two conferences, and should be as neutral as can be. I just thought it was worth pointing out that even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 02/14/2013 @ 01:17:14 PM
Playing in domes does potentially have a bias in direction of dome teams. As artificial turf has become more and more grasslike you hear about it less and less, but a dome team can build more of a "track team" to an outdoor team's "mudders" (His mudder was a mudder.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.