NFL 2013 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 2023 Season Super Bowl Picks.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Chargers 27 @ Broncos 20 Final Thu, 12/12/13 7:25pm
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| 49ers 33 @ Buccaneers 14 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
49ers
 |
49ers
|
49ers
|
Buccaneers
 |
||||
| Saints 16 @ Rams 27 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
Saints
|
||||
| Cardinals 37 @ Titans 34 final overtime Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
Titans
 |
||||
| Seahawks 23 @ Giants 0 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
||||
| Eagles 30 @ Vikings 48 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Eagles
 |
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Patriots 20 @ Dolphins 24 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Bills 27 @ Jaguars 20 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Jaguars
 |
Jaguars
|
Jaguars
|
Jaguars
|
||||
| Texans 3 @ Colts 25 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| Bears 38 @ Browns 31 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Bears
 |
Bears
|
Browns
 |
Bears
|
||||
| Commanders 26 @ Falcons 27 Final Sun, 12/15/13 12:00pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Chiefs 56 @ Raiders 31 Final Sun, 12/15/13 3:05pm
|
Chiefs
 |
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
||||
| Jets 20 @ Panthers 30 Final Sun, 12/15/13 3:05pm
|
Panthers
 |
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
||||
| Packers 37 @ Cowboys 36 Final Sun, 12/15/13 3:25pm
|
Cowboys
 |
Cowboys
|
Cowboys
|
Packers
 |
||||
| Bengals 20 @ Steelers 30 Final Sun, 12/15/13 7:30pm
|
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
Steelers
 |
||||
| Ravens 18 @ Lions 16 Final Mon, 12/16/13 7:40pm
|
Lions
 |
Lions
|
Lions
|
Lions
|
||||
| Week Record | 8 - 8 0.500  | 9 - 7 0.562 | 8 - 8 0.500 | 8 - 8 0.500 | ||||
| Season Record | 135 - 88 0.605 | 132 - 91 0.592 | 134 - 89 0.601 | 135 - 88 0.605 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 1301 - 789 0.623 | 1260 - 830 0.603 | 1295 - 795 0.620 | 1319 - 771 0.631 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3291 - 1921 0.631 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | 3319 - 1893 0.637 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1978 - 1179 0.626 | 1871 - 1286 0.593 | 1965 - 1192 0.622 | 1978 - 1179 0.626 |
49ers
Saints
Titans
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Ravens
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 137 - 86 0.614 |
| Lifetime: | 1322 - 762 0.634 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 150 - 73 0.673 |
| Lifetime: | 1305 - 783 0.625 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Dolphins
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Packers
Bengals
Ravens
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 119 - 73 0.620 |
| Lifetime: | 1087 - 727 0.599 |
49ers
Saints
Titans
Seahawks
Eagles
Dolphins
Jaguars
Colts
Browns
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Steelers
Lions
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 117 - 85 0.579 |
| Lifetime: | 559 - 358 0.610 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Packers
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 129 - 91 0.586 |
| Lifetime: | 752 - 474 0.613 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Browns
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Packers
Bengals
Ravens
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 106 - 65 0.620 |
| Lifetime: | 638 - 384 0.624 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 8 - 7 0.533 |
| Season: | 129 - 74 0.635 |
| Lifetime: | 762 - 390 0.661 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 128 - 92 0.582 |
| Lifetime: | 568 - 356 0.615 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 135 - 81 0.625 |
| Lifetime: | 650 - 366 0.640 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Giants
Eagles
Dolphins
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Commanders
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 7 - 9 0.438 |
| Season: | 134 - 89 0.601 |
| Lifetime: | 569 - 350 0.619 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Jaguars
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Cowboys
Steelers
Lions
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 129 - 94 0.579 |
| Lifetime: | 562 - 315 0.641 |
SF @ TB - No Pick
NO @ LA - No Pick
ARI @ TEN - No Pick
SEA @ NYG - No Pick
PHI @ MIN - No Pick
NE @ MIA - No Pick
BUF @ JAC - No Pick
HOU @ IND - No Pick
CHI @ CLE - No Pick
WAS @ ATL - No Pick
KC @ LV - No Pick
NYJ @ CAR - No Pick
GB @ DAL - No Pick
Steelers
Lions
| Week: | 1 - 2 0.333 |
| Season: | 98 - 78 0.557 |
| Lifetime: | 404 - 258 0.610 |
49ers
Saints
Cardinals
Seahawks
Eagles
Patriots
Bills
Colts
Bears
Falcons
Chiefs
Panthers
Packers
Bengals
Lions
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 81 - 57 0.587 |
| Lifetime: | 81 - 57 0.587 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Eagles 30 @ Vikings 48 | |
 | SarahEverywhere you go. |
 | JonThis will be tough. But the Eagles can be passed on. |
| Packers 37 @ Cowboys 36 | |
| SarahTake a look in the five and ten, |
 | JeremySeas: Parted. |
| JonIt's hard to trust the Cowboys but they do play well at home and with Rodgers out, that's enough. |
| Bengals 20 @ Steelers 30 | |
| Sarahglistening once again, |
| JonBegals are tough to figure out. Steelers are on the rise sort of. Bengals close, I suppose. |
 | Ravens 18 @ Lions 16 | |
| Sarahwith candy canes and silver lanes aglow! |
| JonCan't figure out the Lions at all. They have a knack for doing the opposite of what I think they will. I was thinking of picking opposite what I thought (Costanza style) but I couldn't really figure this game out anyway. The main thing is that the Ravens are inexplicably bad away and the Lions are good at home. Aside from that, I'd probably pick Baltimore. Maybe. I'm not really sure if I would actually. I'm once again begrudgingly picking Detroit. |
  | Scott - Resident Tech Support 12/10/2013 @ 08:54:31 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
While I'm not sure about whether or not the Packers can beat the Cowboys, Vegas has the line at even. An even line on the road is not a good indication for the home team. I may regret this pick, but perhaps Matt Flynn can air it out against a shoddy defense (32nd in passing yards allowed and 28th in rushing yards allowed), while having a pedestrian offense to boot. And for what it's worth, here are some thoughts I had on the game against the Falcons: The Packers defense finally played a pretty good, complete game. They gave up no points in the 2nd half (after leading the league in 4th qtr points allowed). And of the 21 points the Falcons scored, 7 of those were on a fluke dumb luck interception return that isn't credited to the defense obviously, and 7 other points were scored after Flynn fumbled at the 23 yard line. I'm not going to say definitively that the defense only gave up 7 points, but you can sort of read it that way if you want to be optimisitc. |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 12/10/2013 9:08:51 am | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 12/12/2013 @ 08:28:48 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Another thing that makes me think I'm making a mistake picking the Packers this week, other than Super Bowl 45, the Packers have not won in Dallas since 1989, and even then only once since 1975. Sometimes trends are meant to be broken, right? And crap, now the line is Dallas by 7. I wonder if the initial line assumes Rodgers is playing, and then updated as the week progresses. Edit: For the record, I think I may have been wrong about the line being "even". I don't think the line was ever officially even, I think it was not set until today. I saw that the line wasn't set until there was more certainty about who was the starting QB. For the Eagles game, the line went from around 10 points to around 3 or 4 points. And other sources have suggested that Rodgers is worth about 7-10 points of spread compared to the Packers other QB options. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/12/2013 9:54:40 am | ||
 | Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 12/15/2013 @ 07:42:26 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| http://live.advancednflstats.com/index.php?gameid1=2013121512 |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/15/2013 @ 09:53:56 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I want to go on record to say that the GB-Dallas game was one of the most poorly officiated 4th quarters I can remember in a long time. In the interest of not starting a full blown "but what about this" or "but what about that" debate (but I re-watched the 4th quarter, so trust me, I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone on this one), I'll limit my reasons to a single play: the final, gaming clinching INT. The ref that ruled it an incompletion was about 5 yards from the play with the clearest view possible, having nothing in his way to hinder his view of the play. What convinced him that the ball--which was never less than 6 inches or more off the ground at any given time--hit the ground is unknown to anyone with 2 eyes (he had a better angle than even the TV cameras). Tony Romo, knowing that it was an interception, hustled his team to the line (even with the clock stopped), desperately trying to get the snap off. Under 2 minutes, every replay is supposed to be initiated from the booth. However, the only reason the play was reviewed is because the Packers had a timeout left. How the ref ruled it incomplete to begin with is absurd. Why the officials didn't initialize the review right then and there is ridiculous. And had the Packers not had a timeout, the Cowboys would have had the biggest gift of the game at the most opportune time. I understand that generally the home team has a tendency to have close calls go their way, but this one was inexcusable. Correct officiating should not be the responsibility of teams on the field. That being said....greatest...comeback....in....Packers....history. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/16/2013 @ 08:56:10 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Another question from the last couple of weeks: is Matt Flynn making a push for another multi-million dollar contract to be another team's starting quarterback, or he is now just reserved to completing his audition to regain the role of Aaron Rodgers' backup next year? I mean he maybe wasn't given that much of a chance in the year+ away from the Packers, but the teams he was part of apparently didn't want anything whatsoever to do with him. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 12/16/2013 8:57:48 am | ||
 | Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 12/16/2013 @ 10:46:55 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
This game may also go down in history as the game during which Aikman was making more sense than he ever has before. Terrible play calling by Dallas. I still like Tolzien more than Flynn. On passes thrown 11 yards or more Flynn 9 of 24 Tolzien 16 of 28 Flynn is playing for the chance to stay in the NFL, he's not a starter. Unless some team wants a check down specialist as its starter. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/16/2013 @ 11:27:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Tolzien looks like he has a pretty strong arm, and he appears to be coachable. Give him a chance in training camp (as opposed to weekly gameplan cram sessions), and I think he would make a very capable backup. Flynn doesn't appear to have a very strong arm. Even on the long passes he did complete they seem to float up there forever. Tolzien is more capable of throwing heat. Also, Flynn is now 3-2 as a starter for Green Bay, so there's that. Basically, if these are the two guys that the Packers have competing for the backup job next season, things could certainly be a lot worse. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/16/2013 @ 04:39:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:53:56 PM I want to go on record to say that the GB-Dallas game was one of the most poorly officiated 4th quarters I can remember in a long time. In the interest of not starting a full blown "but what about this" or "but what about that" debate (but I re-watched the 4th quarter, so trust me, I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone on this one), I'll limit my reasons to a single play: the final, gaming clinching INT. The ref that ruled it an incompletion was about 5 yards from the play with the clearest view possible, having nothing in his way to hinder his view of the play. What convinced him that the ball--which was never less than 6 inches or more off the ground at any given time--hit the ground is unknown to anyone with 2 eyes (he had a better angle than even the TV cameras). Tony Romo, knowing that it was an interception, hustled his team to the line (even with the clock stopped), desperately trying to get the snap off. Under 2 minutes, every replay is supposed to be initiated from the booth. However, the only reason the play was reviewed is because the Packers had a timeout left. How the ref ruled it incomplete to begin with is absurd. Why the officials didn't initialize the review right then and there is ridiculous. And had the Packers not had a timeout, the Cowboys would have had the biggest gift of the game at the most opportune time. I understand that generally the home team has a tendency to have close calls go their way, but this one was inexcusable. Correct officiating should not be the responsibility of teams on the field. That being said....greatest...comeback....in....Packers....history. So your biggest problem with the officiating, in a game/quarter you consider particularly fraught with slights to your team no less, was a play they got correct in the end, and gave you the time out back on after since they were already being buzzed to review it anyway? It must be fun to be a Packer fan. Also, it was more of a Cowboy collapse than a Packer comeback. Basically if Dallas ran the ball one time in the second half they win the game, and even with the play calling you still needed two of the most Tony Romoish Tony Romos to steal it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 6 times, last at 12/16/2013 5:10:38 pm | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/16/2013 @ 09:52:50 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
It was equal parts Cowboys collapse, and equal parts Packer comeback. The biggest farce in sports analysis is to lay all the credit (or lackthereof) on the feet of the team that collapsed, as if the victorious team won simply by virtue of having a pulse. It takes two to Tango. There's no question the Packers were fortunate that the Cowboys forgot how to play with a lead, but these are the types of games where I always pull out this Civil War reference: When Confederate General Pickett was asked if he blamed General Lee for having his division destroyed in the famed charge that holds his namesake, he responded "I think the Federal troops had something to do with it too." The Packers scored 34 points in the 2nd half with their 4th string quarterback. (after all, the Cowboys caught a big break catching the Packers with their non-injured/non-best qb, right? or does that not apply here?) That is a remarkable feat all by itself. Yes, circumstances created the opportunity, but scoring touchdowns on 5 straight possessions is no small feat. Regarding the call I highlighted, it doesn't matter that they got the call correct. The only reason they got the most important call of the game correct is because the Packers had a timeout, which inside of 2 minutes shouldn't have mattered. The replay they showed had McCarthy calling the timeout which is what prompted the refs to stop the play. Yes, they gave them the timeout back, but without McCarthy doing the refs job, the Cowboys remain alive with only about 30 yards to gain for a field goal (it would have been the Jerry Rice fumble all over again!). It's one thing to get a call wrong. It's another to blow an obvious call and then not review it during a period of the game where reviews are supposed to be automatic. (It's as much an indictment of the replay system as much as it was a potential screw job at the worst possible time) And the the other reason I chose that play was because I figured I would get the least amount of protest. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 12/16/2013 10:00:10 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/16/2013 @ 11:46:27 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| You don't know they wouldn't have stopped it. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 12/17/2013 @ 06:02:40 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| It was still poor officiating, which was my main point anyway. |
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....
Chargers 27 @ Broncos 20
Sarah
It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas...