NFL 2013 Season Week 5 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Bills 24 @ Browns 37 Final Thu, 10/3/13 7:25pm
|
Browns
 |
Bills
 |
Browns
|
Browns
|
||||
| Saints 26 @ Bears 18 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Bears
 |
Saints
|
||||
| Lions 9 @ Packers 22 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Lions
 |
Lions
|
Packers
 |
Packers
|
||||
| Eagles 36 @ Giants 21 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Eagles
 |
Giants
 |
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Chiefs 26 @ Titans 17 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Chiefs
 |
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
||||
| Jaguars 20 @ Rams 34 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Rams
 |
Rams
|
Rams
|
Rams
|
||||
| Ravens 26 @ Dolphins 23 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Dolphins
 |
Dolphins
|
Dolphins
|
Dolphins
|
||||
| Patriots 6 @ Bengals 13 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Bengals
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Seahawks 28 @ Colts 34 Final Sun, 10/6/13 12:00pm
|
Colts
 |
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
||||
| Panthers 6 @ Cardinals 22 Final Sun, 10/6/13 3:05pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Panthers
 |
Panthers
|
Cardinals
|
||||
| Broncos 51 @ Cowboys 48 Final Sun, 10/6/13 3:25pm
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| Chargers 17 @ Raiders 27 Final Sun, 10/6/13 3:25pm
|
Chargers
 |
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
||||
| Texans 3 @ 49ers 34 Final Sun, 10/6/13 7:30pm
|
49ers
 |
49ers
|
49ers
|
49ers
|
||||
| Jets 30 @ Falcons 28 Final Mon, 10/7/13 7:40pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Week Record | 9 - 5 0.643  | 6 - 8 0.429 | 7 - 7 0.500 | 9 - 5 0.643 | ||||
| Season Record | 48 - 29 0.623 | 44 - 33 0.571 | 49 - 28 0.636 | 50 - 27 0.649 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 1214 - 730 0.625 | 1172 - 772 0.603 | 1210 - 734 0.622 | 1234 - 710 0.635 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3291 - 1921 0.631 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | 3319 - 1893 0.637 | 3206 - 2006 0.615 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1891 - 1120 0.628 | 1783 - 1228 0.592 | 1880 - 1131 0.624 | 1893 - 1118 0.629 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 50 - 27 0.649 |
| Lifetime: | 1235 - 703 0.637 |
Saints
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Ravens
Bengals
Colts
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 12 - 2 0.857 |
| Season: | 58 - 19 0.753 |
| Lifetime: | 1213 - 729 0.625 |
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Titans
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Colts
Cardinals
Broncos
Raiders
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 29 - 17 0.630 |
| Lifetime: | 997 - 671 0.598 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Titans
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 41 - 36 0.532 |
| Lifetime: | 483 - 309 0.610 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Broncos
Raiders
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Lifetime: | 310 - 193 0.616 |
Saints
Lions
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 47 - 30 0.610 |
| Lifetime: | 670 - 413 0.619 |
Saints
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Ravens
Patriots
Seahawks
Panthers
Broncos
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
| Week: | 7 - 6 0.538 |
| Season: | 18 - 11 0.621 |
| Lifetime: | 550 - 330 0.625 |
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Ravens
Bengals
Colts
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 11 - 3 0.786 |
| Season: | 52 - 25 0.675 |
| Lifetime: | 685 - 341 0.668 |
Saints
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Colts
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 47 - 30 0.610 |
| Lifetime: | 487 - 294 0.624 |
Saints
Packers
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Panthers
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 50 - 27 0.649 |
| Lifetime: | 565 - 312 0.644 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Chiefs
Rams
Ravens
Patriots
Colts
Panthers
Broncos
Chargers
49ers
Falcons
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 50 - 27 0.649 |
| Lifetime: | 485 - 288 0.627 |
Bears
Lions
Eagles
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Cowboys
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
| Week: | 5 - 9 0.357 |
| Season: | 41 - 36 0.532 |
| Lifetime: | 474 - 257 0.648 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Patriots
Seahawks
Cardinals
Broncos
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 42 - 33 0.560 |
| Lifetime: | 348 - 213 0.620 |
Saints
Packers
Giants
Chiefs
Rams
Dolphins
Bengals
Seahawks
Panthers
Broncos
Raiders
Texans
Falcons
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 34 - 43 0.442 |
| Lifetime: | 156 - 133 0.540 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Lions 9 @ Packers 22 | |
 | SarahI could see the Lions absolutely destroying the Packers this week, history be damned. |
 | JonI don't trust the Lions enough to pick them on the road against the Packers. |
 | Texans 3 @ 49ers 34 | |
| SarahIf Texans want to win this game, that'd be just fine by me. |
| JonThe Not-Meeting-Expectations Bowl! |
 | Jets 30 @ Falcons 28 | |
| SarahWhatevs. |
| JonThe Falcons sure need a win. This could be the perfect game for that, but the Jets aren't as terrible as people thought. |
  | Scott - 6225 Posts 10/01/2013 @ 09:27:54 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/adrian-peterson-s-endorsement-of-matt-cassel-puts-vikings-in-qb-bind-with-christian-ponder-020700855.html Did Adrian Peterson endorse Matt Cassel? |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/01/2013 @ 04:13:57 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
It depends. First of all it's one of those "what are they supposed to say" things. Assuming they can anything beyond "that's not up to me", Cassel is a teammate with feelings too. So you can't just be like "nah man, he sucks, let's go back to Ponder." Second of all, context is everything. These types articles are ALWAYS reported like "Adrian saw a microphone and rushed over to heap praise on Cassel", when, depending on the question that prompted the response, the same answers are pretty harmless to nothing answers. (See Jennings v Packers) If he was actually asked "What did Cassel do well today?" or even "What did Matt do well today that Christian could work on?" then there's no controversy to his answer at all. He's been a pretty vocal supporter of Ponder in the past. For the record, Cassel's game graded out as the worst game so far from the QB position. The difference between this week and Ponder's losses is Cassel got away with everything, and Ponder's gotten away with almost nothing. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 10/01/2013 4:17:17 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/01/2013 @ 05:07:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| What grading scale is that based on? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/01/2013 @ 11:36:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Pro football focus. Actually the only thing I can find without relying on hearsay from people that have access to the stats is that his grade of -3.7 on the day is about the same as Ponder. Cassel didn't have the game many seem to be crediting him for. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 10/01/2013 11:50:15 pm | ||
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/02/2013 @ 08:02:31 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| ESPN's Total QBR had Ponder at 20.4, 44.1, and 57.9 for weeks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Cassel's week 4 performance was 52. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/02/2013 @ 12:39:39 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| What got Cassel a bad grade from Pro Football Focus, was that he had about 3 plays that should have been turnovers, but weren't. I don't know if QBR takes those plays into effect or not. Also, he benefited from Greg Jennings taking a short pass 70 yards for a touchdown. PFF doesn't give Cassel full credit for that; I'm not sure, again, what QBR does. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Matt screwed with this at 10/02/2013 12:40:18 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/02/2013 @ 01:22:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I know total QBR looks at those types of things a lot more than passer rating does. QBR attempts to factor in how much of the YAC was credited to the receiver or the QB. In other words, if you throw a bubble screen and the receiver jukes 7 guys to go 70 yards, the QB won't get much credit for this. On the other hand, if a QB throws a 30 yard strike on a crossing route where he threads the ball between two defenders and hits the receiver in the hands and the receiver sprints 40 more yards unimpeded, the QB is going to get a lot more credit, even for the YAC. At least that's my understanding. Not sure how this applies your examples necessarily. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 10/02/2013 1:28:12 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/02/2013 @ 01:46:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
PFF basically looks at every single play of every single player and grades if it was good/bad/routine as far as what role the player played in that play, and assigns it a score accordingly. QBR, I believe, does some of this but I don't think they get into what "should" have happened like PFF grades do. https://www.profootballfocus.com/about/grading/ Although even QBR shows that Cassel's day wasn't nearly as good as people seem to think, and, in fact, Ponder had a better game. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/02/2013 1:52:07 pm | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 10/04/2013 @ 07:56:52 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'd say "Break up the Browns", but I get the feeling that they were already trying to do that themselves. So much for guaranteeing themselves a top draft pick. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/04/2013 @ 08:00:17 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Regarding Ponder/Cassel, if it were me, I'd still say start Ponder. Cassel has clearly proven that he is nothing more than a backup quarterback. Fans that cry for Ponder to be benched in favor of Cassel are probably just looking for something different, whether or not that difference is actually an improvement. Change for the sake of change. There's not much debate around whether or not Ponder has played well in the three games he's played this season. For the most part, he really hasn't. But you already know that Cassel isn't a solution to any problem. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/04/2013 @ 08:41:08 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'll be honest, there's a little too much unanimous consent in favor of a 1-2 team over a 3-1 team regarding the Packers and Lions for me to feel truly comfortable. Yeah, the Lions haven't won in Wisconsin since Desert Storm (which obviously isn't relevant as each game is an independent variable), and yeah the Packers are favored by 8 points (which seems unusually high, but then again maybe not). It's a game like this that I could see a team losing, since the Lions aren't exactly the Jacksonville Jaguars. Still, I don't see the Packers laying an egg at home. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/06/2013 @ 10:55:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Given the choice between Ponder and Cassel the Vikings have gone with Josh Freeman. I'm not as down on Ponder as many. I mean, I'm not delusional, I just think that some growing pains with developing a guy are forgivable. Especially in the case of this season where the Vikings had almost nothing else working on offense and still were in the top 7 for offensive scoring. Hopefully this works out, it would be nice to not have to spend the 1st rounder on a QB again. It's probably fair to say Freeman has the most upside of the 3, but you have to worry about a situation where a guy went from Franchise QB to on the streets in about 12 days. It's possible it's just the "we didn't draft you and want our own guy" on steroids, but still, worrisome. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/06/2013 11:03:47 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/07/2013 @ 08:18:49 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
A few thoughts about the Packers-Lions game: I was 8 years old the last time the Packers lost to the Lions in the state of Wisconsin. It's been 22 years since then. I'll let you do the math. Mason Crosby was "stripped" of his kickoff duties this year with the intention of getting him refocused on field goals. So far, it appears to be working. He hit 5 field goals yesterday, all hit right down the middle, including a 52 yarder. Last year, Crosby was 2-9 from 50 yards and beyond. So that's a good sign. Ndamukong Suh is plain a simple a dirty, dirty player, and his Lions teammates aren't exactly a bunch of choir boys either. Suh was flagged 15 yards for "tripping" Aaron Rodgers, on what played out more along the lines of Suh kicking Rodgers in the knee. Later in the game, another D-lineman, Israel Idonije did almost the exact same thing, sticking his leg out as Rodgers was going by and jacking him in the knee again; Rodgers came up limping a little bit after that one. I don't know about Idonije's history, but given Suh's history, nearly everything questionable thing he does has to be assumed that he is either attempting to injure, or that he doesn't understand the difference between a legal play and a "this could end a guy's career or put his life in jeopardy" action. In my opinion, the NFL has to start holding someone else accountable for Suh's actions on the field, like his coach or Lions management. Like for every blatantly dirty hit Suh doles out, Jim Schwartz has to pay a fine. James Jones should have easily gotten his second foot in bounds on that late touchdown that was overturned. If that were Jordy Nelson, he would have. Jordy Nelson might be one of the most underrated wide receivers in the game. He came down with some catches yesterday that I haven't seen a Packers receiver make in quite some time. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 10/07/2013 8:35:40 am | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 10/07/2013 @ 12:54:02 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:55:30 PM Given the choice between Ponder and Cassel the Vikings have gone with Josh Freeman. I'm not as down on Ponder as many. I mean, I'm not delusional, I just think that some growing pains with developing a guy are forgivable. Especially in the case of this season where the Vikings had almost nothing else working on offense and still were in the top 7 for offensive scoring. Hopefully this works out, it would be nice to not have to spend the 1st rounder on a QB again. It's probably fair to say Freeman has the most upside of the 3, but you have to worry about a situation where a guy went from Franchise QB to on the streets in about 12 days. It's possible it's just the "we didn't draft you and want our own guy" on steroids, but still, worrisome. Five Reasons Josh Freeman Will Not Succeed with Vikings. Reason #4: He doesn't play defense. You have a point that the being ranked so high in points per game would have you think that their offense is doing something right. The QB numbers add to some confusion to that, because they aren't good. Regarding Freeman, I remember when he was drafted (I was living in Tampa at the time) that the local sports media didn't like him from the get-go (there were rumors around that time that the Bucs had a chance to land Jay Cutler (as well as Rumors that Favre was going to sign with the Bucs; I think he was in Tampa for a day or two around that time as well)). It'll be interesting to see where the Vikings go with this. The one almost certain thing is that within a week or two, Josh Freeman will be playing. You don't sign a guy after week 5 for $3 million dollars to provide sideline competition. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/07/2013 1:44:55 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/07/2013 @ 04:22:24 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'm lazy, so I'm just going to copy a couple of my reddit posts: From a Broncos fan: Am I missing something on this whole signing? In my opinion, the Bucs would have gladly started Ponder or Cassel over their QB options a couple games into the season. Why are people assuming that Freeman is #1 on the depth chart in Minnesota? They wouldn't have done it just for him to sit. The starting job is at least available to earn, if not his to lose (after some learning). Of course whether or not this SHOULD be the scenario is probably open for debate. I'm not as down on Ponder as many. I mean, I'm not delusional, but nothing was working for the Vikings weeks 1-3. Outside of his opening carry AP and the running game was basically actively sabotaging the offense, and the line never gave Ponder more than .3 seconds to pass. Also if you watch other teams you see systems where the offense is so spread out that there are holes in the defense everywhere, whereas the Vikings offensive system seems to be designed for the sole purpose of making sure there are at least 4 defenders that could disrupt any pass. They were still like top 7 for scoring. Ponder must have been effective somewhere, even if he looked god awful doing it. I do think Freeman has the most upside of the 3, but you could make a case he makes the least sense to "explore". If the Vikings start Ponder all year, for better or worse, they get as close to a final answer as possible. While I don't pretend he was "secretly good" in weeks 1, 2 or 3, he must have been doing something with mostly nothing. Even if you can argue these other 2 are "better" right now, and I'm not so sure that's the absolute no-brainer 99% of the internet seems convinced of,...is that even the point? Shouldn't they be better than a guy that has about 2 disjoint seasons worth of starts? Developing a QB would be a rare thing if the point was always "start the best guy this week". If the Vikings start Cassel all year and declare the Ponder experiment over then they know whether or not they can depend on Cassel for a year or two with the draftee on the bench, or if they need to get another caretaker, or throw the rookie into the fire and give Cassel the clipboard as one of the league's better backups. If the Vikings start Freeman they learn nothing about the QB's they have. The QBs they have get no better in the offense. Since he's only signed through the end of the year the time they invest in Freeman is either pissed away by his leaving, or they have to take the risk of prematurely extending him. (He already turned down a 2 year deal, so it would presumably have to be a multiyear deal.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 10/07/2013 4:22:43 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/07/2013 @ 04:36:13 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'm torn, because he DOES probably have the highest ceiling of our 3 options, and it's tough not to be excited about "what could be". We're pretty good with no defense, no passing game, and no running game...so imagine how good we'd be if we fixed...anything. Realistically though, he'll take a week or two to be up to speed, a week or two to shake the rust off. So now you're talking 8 or 9. So, from week 8 or 9 on there has to be a game or two that we ONLY win cause of Freeman, and that has to be enough for a playoff berth, or it was pretty much just a giant waste of time. All of that is being asked of a guy who is only available because he had a worse start to the season than both QB's we already have, before some combo of his attitude and coaching hubris found him going from Franchise QB to "had to cut him" in a couple weeks. I want to believe, I just don't think I can. I'm guessing we have a few more games like last week, where Cassel looked good, but it might have had more to do with not running everything out of a double TE + fullback set and then being shocked to find 10 guys you can't block all of near the line, as anything else. We extend Freeman 4-5 years based on how good he looks, miss out on the next rookies ( who go on to greatness), and then Freeman sucks ass next season. Edit: This was not a reddit post, btw. Back to nutcan exclusive content |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 6 times, last at 10/07/2013 4:44:09 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/08/2013 @ 09:01:19 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Perhaps what Freeman will do will be to elevate the Vikings stock just a enough so that even though they miss the playoffs, they end up with the 17th pick in the draft instead of the 5th pick (and then probably overreach on another quarterback). That would be the Vikings way, wouldn't it? Seriously, though, Freeman's history might not be extensive, but he does have SOME history of success, and he still is relatively young. Perhaps they are thinking that even if they don't make the playoffs this year, signing him for only this year gives them a really good look at a QB that could potentially be a medium-length solution. But then again, to your point, if he flutters and they don't keep him around, they now don't have that solution, and they are back to hoping that Ponder starts to come around. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 10/08/2013 9:05:27 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 10/08/2013 @ 09:39:12 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well that's a given no matter who starts. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 10/08/2013 @ 01:31:12 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| They could look to trade one of the three as there's a fair amount of QB injuries going around. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/08/2013 @ 02:36:19 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The Bills might be able to start one of them for the 2nd and 3rd quarters of their week 7 game |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/08/2013 @ 04:08:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:31:12 PM They could look to trade one of the three as there's a fair amount of QB injuries going around. I think Cassel and Ponder are worth more to them than the 6th or 7th they'd get. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 10/08/2013 @ 11:22:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Cassel has no upside, if Ponder and Freeman are healthy might as well flip Cassel for whatever. Their playoff odds are 3.6% for this year anyway according to this http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/playoffodds |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 10/08/2013 @ 11:49:23 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Yeah, but who knows what that's looking at. We have one more loss than the rest of the division, with all our home divisional games left. The Packers are .500 and have looked pretty hum drum. Wouldn't be at all surprised if the Lions left Lambeau with a victory had Megatron not come down with a nasty case of "we play the Packers this week", and they sit, one game behind everyone else, at 66%? Not to mention the way this year is going 3 6-10 teams might make the playoffs. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 10/08/2013 11:50:28 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/09/2013 @ 12:09:05 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Here's some interesting info I found on the Freeman thing. The Vikings are saying anything from "Ponder is still our starter, we just wanted to add a talented guy to the roster" to, at best, vague between the lines implications that they might reevaluate in a couple weeks. Everyone is calling BS on that, saying that they just want to play the cards to their vest, Ponder will never take another snap, and Freeman is the starter the nano second he knows the playbook well enough. Upon further review, I don't know if I think that's true anymore. While it's possible that Josh was also told to "play coy for now" his comments throughout his interviews seem to tell a story beyond "That's a decision for the coaches....*wink*". In one interview he said that the reason he liked what the Vikings offered was because "unlike the other teams, they didn't just tell me what they thought I wanted to hear". Which, to my ears sounds like there WAS no implication "you will be the starter if you come here", because I'm not sure what else teams would assume a guy in his position choosing between teams in QB trouble "wants" to hear. In another interview he said that the fact that the Vikings already have Ponder is the reason he wanted to come here. He doesn't want to be a starter right now, he just wants to become a better football player. Which some have interpreted as "I thought it was a better career move to go somewhere where they had a good enough situation to get by for a few weeks while I learned the system...then I'm the starter....*wink*" As opposed to the career suicide that going somewhere like Buffalo where he'd have been thrown out there to Sunday, probably to fail spectacularly. Still, while it would probably be stupid NOT to reevaluate in a couple weeks no matter what was said to whom, I'm not really all that sure anymore that there was any kind of "you're our starter, for sure, when you're ready, but, shhhhh" implication. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/09/2013 12:13:02 am | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 10/09/2013 @ 07:47:49 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You wait all year to be able to use this comment, don't you. In truth, I was laughing a little as the game approached because Nate Burrelson had already broken his arm in a freak pizza-slid-off-the-seat-and-caused-a-car-accident. Probably more of a Lions-cursed-at-Lambeau thing than anything else. But then again, Clay Matthews broke his thumb during the game, so maybe players just sometimes get hurt. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/09/2013 8:20:56 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/09/2013 @ 11:27:54 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, as we've discussed before, the Packer's team plane could crash into a biochemical lab killing the entire team and rendering the only people in the state capable of representing the Packers the next Sunday an off-the-grid convent of 75 year old nuns, it would still be fortunate if their opponent showed up without their best player. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/09/2013 @ 11:55:18 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'm just confused how it is always a "it's because they're playing the Packers" thing. (or is it a "say it to get a rise out of someone" kind of thing, because if so, then touche) Was it fortunate for the Packers that Calvin Johnson was out on Sunday? Yes. But so what. The league's best (or one of the best) linebackers--Clay Matthews--will be out for the next month. That'll be pretty fortunate for the Vikings in a couple of weeks. Basically, I would guess that over time, the Packers have had a pretty equal amount of "one of our best players is injured" compared to the rest of the league. Basically, for the better part of the last 20 years the Packers best player has been their quarterback, and for the vast majority of that time, that player has been on the field each week. Even so, they have circumstances themselves that benefit the teams they play from time to time too. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 10/09/2013 11:58:21 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 10/09/2013 @ 12:17:32 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'd bet he'll make his triumphant return for the Vikings game, if the past is any guide. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 10/09/2013 @ 12:22:56 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 11:55:18 AM Even so, they have circumstances themselves that benefit the teams they play from time to time too. Right, but again, totally irrelevant in that context. Yes, the Packers have injuries. Yes, other teams play the Packers without some of the Packer's players. Duh. Aaron Rodgers could have fallen into a wood chipper that morning, it would still be fortunate for the Packers, in whatever state they're in, that the Lions showed up without Calvin. That still gives the Packers, in whatever state they're in, a better chance of winning than if the Lions showed up at full strength. (As they had just recently done against both the Bears and Vikings, and looked like a completely different, and dangerous, team.) This is the case even if it's also true that the Lions' chances of winning went up between Rodgers being in one piece and his being in several pieces. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 4 times, last at 10/09/2013 12:29:21 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/09/2013 @ 01:16:02 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
There's a difference between "the Packers were fortunate that Johnson was out" (true statement) and "star players regularly drop like flies the week the Packers are on the schedule" (pants on fire). It's relevant because the context is incomplete without talking about both sides. If you want to point out everytime a Packers opponent has someone injured for a game and it is a fortunate break for the Packers, that's fine. I'll just complete the picture by pointing out the often times equal forutnate break the Packers opponents catch when the Packers have an injured player on their roster. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:27:54 AM Well, as we've discussed before, the Packer's team plane could crash into a biochemical lab killing the entire team and rendering the only people in the state capable of representing the Packers the next Sunday an off-the-grid convent of 75 year old nuns, it would still be fortunate if their opponent showed up without their best player. I get the feeling that if that scenario did play out, and if the nuns did end up beating the Lions, you'd still be spouting off about how fortunate the Packers were that the Lions were without Johnson and again imply that teams need to watch their stars when the Packers are on the schedule, and then treat as irrelevant that the entirety of the Packers roster was scattered all over the Lake Michigan floor. ("Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews, and their entire receiving corps were stuck in a life boat at game time"..."So what, the Lions didn't have their best player which was a typical lucky break for the Packers") |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 10/09/2013 1:19:35 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 10/09/2013 @ 01:44:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
There'd probably be a couple receiving corpses too. And yes, that would be a break for the Packers, would it not? 25 bad breaks doesn't make one good break not exist. Also, while we're on the "pants on fire" portion: In their past 3 wins alone the Packers have drawn a team without their starting QB, a team whose starting QB was still testing out what could be done on what remains of his knee, and a team without one of the best players in the league who single highhandedly dictates an entirely different defensive scheme. In just the last 2 games the Vikings have had a surprising upstart qb unleashed on them, and had a #1 running back return against them. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this at 10/09/2013 1:47:32 pm | ||
 | Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 10/09/2013 @ 01:46:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I've been waiting since 11:50 am on Sunday for Jeremy to make the comment. My work here is complete. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/09/2013 @ 01:48:20 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
 |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/09/2013 @ 01:57:06 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:46:10 PM I've been waiting since 11:50 am on Sunday for Jeremy to make the comment. My work here is complete. Also, doesn't the fact that the opportunity to troll you guys with the comment happens enough for you to know the comment is coming say something about the frequency in which it happens?  Ponder that! (Freeman that?) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/09/2013 @ 03:09:07 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
Rodger that. Although the frequency of the comment I think says more about the predictability of the commentor.  |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 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....
Bills 24 @ Browns 37
Sarah
I'll say it again, this could end up being a good game.Jon
Browns might be just catching lightning in a bottle right now, but against the Bills they might still have enough for another win.