NFL 2015 Season Wildcard Weekend 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 2017 Season Week 1 Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Chiefs 30 @ Texans 0
Final
Sat, 1/9/16 3:35pm
10 Picks - 77% 3 Picks - 23%
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Chiefs
Steelers 18 @ Bengals 16
Final
Sat, 1/9/16 7:15pm
7 Picks - 54% 6 Picks - 46%
Steelers
Steelers
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Steelers
Steelers
Seahawks 10 @ Vikings 9
Final
Sun, 1/10/16 12:05pm
11 Picks - 79% 3 Picks - 21%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Seahawks
Seahawks
Packers 35 @ Redskins 18
Final
Sun, 1/10/16 3:40pm
7 Picks - 50% 7 Picks - 50%
Packers
Packers
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Redskins
Packers
Packers
Week Record3 - 1
0.750
1 - 3
0.250
Worst Place
1 - 3
0.250
Worst Place
4 - 0
1.000
First Place
Season Record159 - 101
0.612
153 - 107
0.589
152 - 108
0.585
147 - 113
0.565
Scotttime Record1660 - 999
0.624
1597 - 1062
0.601
1649 - 1010
0.620
1656 - 1003
0.623
No-Pack-Vike Record2228 - 1294
0.633
2159 - 1363
0.613
2231 - 1291
0.633
2214 - 1308
0.629
Lifetime Record2337 - 1389
0.627
2208 - 1518
0.593
2319 - 1407
0.622
2315 - 1411
0.621
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Chiefs
Bengals
Seahawks
Redskins

Week:2 - 2
0.500
Season:146 - 114
0.561
Lifetime:1665 - 986
0.628
2887.gif
Chiefs
Steelers
Seahawks
Packers

Week:4 - 0
1.000
Season:159 - 100
0.614
Lifetime:1496 - 894
0.626
skull full.jpg
Chiefs
Steelers
Seahawks
Redskins

Week:3 - 1
0.750
Season:131 - 81
0.618
Lifetime:680 - 420
0.618
question_mark.gif
KC @ HOU - No Pick
PIT @ CIN - No Pick
Seahawks
Packers

Week:2 - 0
1.000
Season:81 - 54
0.600
Lifetime:833 - 496
0.627
hambone.jpg
Chiefs
Steelers
Seahawks
Redskins

Week:3 - 1
0.750
Season:163 - 97
0.627
Lifetime:1024 - 560
0.646
IMG003.jpg
Chiefs
Steelers
Seahawks
Redskins

Week:3 - 1
0.750
Season:141 - 118
0.544
Lifetime:906 - 539
0.627
2015-08-23 17.06.53.jpg
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
Packers

Week:2 - 2
0.500
Season:134 - 96
0.583
Lifetime:418 - 258
0.618
IMG_20131124_132302_774.jpg
Chiefs
Steelers
Seahawks
Redskins

Week:3 - 1
0.750
Season:156 - 103
0.602
Lifetime:356 - 210
0.629
1441860133743826163568.jpg
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
Packers

Week:2 - 2
0.500
Season:150 - 110
0.577
Lifetime:326 - 199
0.621
question_mark.gif
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
Packers

Week:2 - 2
0.500
Season:141 - 99
0.588
Lifetime:141 - 99
0.588
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Chiefs 30 @ Texans 0

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
Andy Reid might snake coach of the year away from Mike Zimmer even though the Chiefs were expected to be where they are, and the Vikings beat them. Besides overcoming a big injury, the only reason Reid is on the map is because they recovered from sucking so hard for so long in the first place, and people are very what-have-you-done-for-me-lately.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
You know I'm going to do well when I pick all away teams. Chiefs really picked up their game though after starting off so rough. Texans won the AFC South. That's hardly a division.
jon.jpg
Jon
Crazy season by the Chiefs. You know what I don't wanna hear anymore of? People ragging on Andy Reid. I'm sure he's not perfect in every aspect of coaching (a trait shared by every other coach anyway), but he's been one of the best coaches in the league for over a decade. He's a hall of fame coach. So zip it.

Steelers 18 @ Bengals 16

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Bengals don't win in the postseason.
jon.jpg
Jon
Yeah I know the whole QB situation for both teams. I still think the Bengals are better.

Seahawks 10 @ Vikings 9

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
This one could go a lot differently now that we aren't decimated at every level including our main anti-Wilson tool in Barr. I guess time will tell. Hopefully more time than about 18 minutes of game time this go round.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
I really really really really don't want the Seahawks to win. That being said, they scare me and will probably go back to the Super Bowl.
jon.jpg
Jon
I guess it's gonna be cold.

Packers 35 @ Redskins 18

jeremy.jpg
Jeremy
This is an interesting game because though Packer fans were torn on the division and 3 seed, everyone thought Washington was a the best playoff matchup. Conversely Washington fans were hoping for Green Bay. Of course they can both be correct about it being the weakest available matchup. I guess we'll find out who was right to hope.
sarah.jpg
Sarah
I could see the Packers losing this game 38-10. Easily.
jon.jpg
Jon
Gotta remember Washington is a good home team. They haven't beaten a lot of good teams, but Green Bay has been struggling, so this isn't out of reach.
2887.gifAlex - 3609 Posts
01/05/2016 @ 12:56:32 PM
 Quote this comment
road teams ftw
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
01/05/2016 @ 04:52:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott's going for the tried and true "if I get the pick wrong, I'm happy, and if I'm unhappy at least I got the pick right" maneuver.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/05/2016 @ 05:00:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Plus I have no confidence in the Packers chances offense. Part of me wonders if Washington is as good as they've looked the last few games, but the Packers have to score points too.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/05/2016 @ 05:01:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, I think I picked against the Packers in all 4 playoff games in 2010. It worked then, why not now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - So's your face
01/06/2016 @ 08:30:12 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:00:32 PM
Plus I have no confidence in the Packers chances offense. Part of me wonders if Washington is as good as they've looked the last few games, but the Packers have to score points too.

I'm being more optimistic than Scott? What a world....
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
01/07/2016 @ 09:47:11 AM
 Quote this comment
There is no predictability in their offense right now. There is nothing to hang a hat on and say, "yes, they should be able to match up well against this guy" or "they should be able to exploit that part of the defense". I'm starting to think that it's not just the lack of a strong receiving corps; Rodgers is off his game too, it seems. He's not seeing open receivers, and when has small windows, he's missing in ways he never would before. The interception late in the game against the Vikings is a classic case. He had time to throw. He had James Jones in the corner of the endzone, not necessarily wide open, but had the ball been thrown to the sidelines instead of the middle of the field the only one with a chance at it would have been Jones. Maybe Rodgers is right that he will "bring it" on Sunday, but over the last 10 games there has been little seen to be able to say "if they can only replicate that..."

Of course, if Rodgers doesn't essentially give up 21 points all by himself in the last 2 weeks, both those games may have turned out differently.

I'll put it another way. I don't put all the blame on Rodgers because obviously the cast around him isn't playing up to snuff either. But this is a guy who as recently as last year was the league's MVP and playing about as good or better than anyone has ever played the position in the history of game. While winning 10 games is probably somewhat of a testament to "a bad Rodgers is still better than most", I would still expect better play when the opportunities are their to make those plays.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I hate our freedoms
01/07/2016 @ 04:24:02 PM
 Quote this comment
I think I've said most of this on here before but:

Losing Jordy hurts because he and Rodgers seemed to just have this telepathic connection working, but IMO it's hard at this point to try and make a case that the difference between last offense you want to see and the "who the hell are these guys?" this year is Jordy Nelson. I suppose you could make a case that in and of itself it isn't that big of a difference, but rather a slight difference that makes a slight difference there, and a slight difference there, and so on and so forth. Still, I think the simpler explanation is Rodgers is having a down year, and that has shone a light on the rest of a roster people assumed brilliant. Maybe age, maybe accumulation of bumps and bruises, maybe teams have figured out how to play him, maybe we don't need an explanation. He's human, not infallible.

The Packers wouldn't be the first team that went from legit Super Bowl team to crap based on their QB. It's barely even an exception at this point, although most of this is exposed by injury to the QB. not a hum drum year by the QB. A good QB can cover up for an otherwise poor team.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
01/08/2016 @ 12:03:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Losing a player like Jordy does a couple of things.

1) it forces the 2 receiver to become the 1 receiver, the 3 to become the 2, and so on. Each receiver that may have been good in his role now has to take on possibly a different role.

2) the 2 and 3 or 4 receivers suddenly don't have the 1 receiver to draw pressure off of them. When Davante Adams has Jordy Nelson on the other side of the field, he can "stand out" because defense put one guy on him and 2 guys Jordy. On not just 1 guy, but probably the defense's third best cornerback. Without the number 1, now each of the receivers is being guarded by a slightly better cornerback on top of the fact that the number 1 who isn't there is no longer drawing pressure away from the number 2, 3, and 4 receivers.

That being said, I wouldn't put all of the Packers lack of offensive performance on the loss of Nelson, although it's no secret that it is a big portion of it. But on top of that, Rodgers also seems to be off.

Put in another way, Miracle Hail Mary aside, the Packers lost 2 games by less than 4 points, 1 game by 7 point and another by 8 points; in all 4 of those games the Packers had the ball in scoring distance either on the last play of the game or very close to the end of the game (missed game winning field goal vs Detroit; 2 dropped TD passes with under 1 minute against Chicago). Whether it's Jordy's absence or Rodgers offness, a slight nudge but Jordy's presence or Rodgers playing slightly more up to his standard and suddenly the Packers are a 12-13 win team with a productive offense and a pretty solid defense*.

In conclusion, considering how bad the Packers offense was and how many close games they lost, gaining back a Pro Bowl receiver could be reasonably seen as given them the slight 2-3 additional win edge.

Don't read too much into the "if only these plays went in their favor" thing, because I know every team could try and say that (some would obviously be wrong, some would be right), but from my micro-analysis of the Packers, my conclusion isn't unreasonable.

*If you take out the 21 points the Rodgers gave up in the last 3 games on his fumbles (I know, not really fair, but still--and I'm pretty sure all points against are counted in ESPN's points against per game calculation), the Packers would be 5th in scoring defense.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/08/2016 12:07:14 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
01/08/2016 @ 12:40:13 PM
 Quote this comment
The Lions were a Hail Mary and the Seahawk's illegal bat away from being the 5 seed. That's pretty crazy really. 3 NFC North teams in the playoffs were that close to reality.

It's easy to what if to death too. The Bears were in the redzone every 20 seconds in week one. What if Carr doesn't spot the Packers 14 10 seconds into the Raiders game. Etc.

The Vikings were a strip sack away from a makable FG for an OT for a bye in the playoffs.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 01/08/2016 12:52:00 pm
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
01/08/2016 @ 01:01:29 PM
 Quote this comment
I generally draw the line in the what-if game to 1 single play*, but obviously people can make their own standards. Like if 1 single play can actually produce/prevent the points needed without reasonable response from the opposition. In other words, a weird play in the first quarter gives both teams the entire game to respond or have things play out differently. I weird play with 1:30 left in the 4th quarter makes it much more certain that that single play will have a more certain impact on the outcome.

Anyway, my whole point wasn't to try and suggest that the Packers are actually better than they are, but rather that gaining a Pro Bowl (nelson) player could very reasonably make a difference in a handful of games that were seemingly decided by 1 play.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 01/08/2016 1:08:30 pm
2887.gifAlex - Who controls the past now controls the future
01/08/2016 @ 02:49:00 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, their leading receiver by yards is Jones, who was cut by two other teams before the season. Without their clear #1 receiver, every one is bumped a spot (as mentioned) and basically no one has been able to step to their new responsibility. Cobb can't be "the guy", Jones never was better than a #3 type which is why they let him go the first time, Adams sucks as a #2 (qualifier possibly not needed), R. Rodgers is average at best, Montgomery maybe would have had a good year if not also hurt since he had catches in only 5 games and he's still the 4th most productive for the season, and that fact shows that Abbrederis and Janis either aren't good enough are just aren't ready to the even a #4.

Actually, they were undefeated in games Montgomery played in. So they lost a top 5 in the league #1 for the whole season, Montgomery who probably would have been #2 or #3, Adams didn't develop at all, and yes Aaron Rodgers hasn't had "it" (77 QBR last year down to 65).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - No one's gay for Moleman
01/08/2016 @ 03:22:31 PM
 Quote this comment
But maybe it's a chicken/egg thing. Maybe it isn't so much that they can't handle their "new roles", but that *they* were never "handling" their old ones. Maybe they look average because they are average, and all it was in the past was that they had the best QB in the world at the helm.

I don't even think that's a particularly "out there" take on it. What's more likely, that Ted Thompson and co had some kind of crystal ball that would find one WR after another, or that a really good QB can make acceptable talent look like all world talent? Cause really, the latter happens all the time. Guys leave their all-pro situation and go on to be middling talents with a lesser QB.

Rodgers isn't playing all world, and as such the cracks in the facade that have always been there are suddenly an issue.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 01/08/2016 3:23:29 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/08/2016 @ 03:33:22 PM
 Quote this comment
You could argue whatever you want (why can't it be that Ted found good receivers AND Rodgers was making them look all world?). But you could also look at the makeup of the roster and how it has changed over time. And you can also look at film study and see differences in how plays transpired compared to prior years (in all fairness, I wouldn't expect a Vikings fan to spend too much time watching Packers film analysis). Do you think that having Jordy Nelson would have made 0 difference in the productivity of the offense? I happen to think that he probably would, regardless if Rodgers had a down year, and since 66% of their losses came down to essentially the final play, that impact could have manifested itself quite differently. QB down year + missing Top 5 in the league receiver would have an impact on the rest of the receivers. It's not an either or, necessarily.

Jordy Nelson had 98 catches last year. It's possible that Nelson would have 50 receptions with a bad QB, but it's also possible that Rodgers has mutually benefited from his all-world skills and have for the bulk of his career to date a really good set of receivers to throw it to.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 01/08/2016 3:34:53 pm
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
01/08/2016 @ 03:37:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Besides, if you asked Skip Bayless, it has been 100% the receivers that have given Rodgers the success he has had. Because Rodgers clearly just isn't very good.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/08/2016 @ 03:44:19 PM
 Quote this comment
Also, it isn't just "Jordy" being gone but his skill set. Without Nelson, the packers don't have a guy who can stretch the field deep with size and speed. So in a further sense, Losing Jordy messes the makeup of the offensive system as a whole. Throw all that into the mix of Rodgers not playing his best and the lower receivers not playing up to snuff and it's combination of the three.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 01/08/2016 3:44:49 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?
01/08/2016 @ 04:21:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:29 PM
Besides, if you asked Skip Bayless, it has been 100% the receivers that have given Rodgers the success he has had. Because Rodgers clearly just isn't very good.


I mean, isn't that what you're kind of arguing? I'm the one "arguing with Skip" here.

Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:44:19 PM
Without Nelson, the packers don't have a guy who can stretch the field deep with size and speed.


He's tall-ish for a WR but he's not terribly fast. I don't think he'd make zero impact on this season, but I think you're giving him a little too much credit. If you think any large part of the difference between how Aaron looks now and how Aaron looked before is Jordy Nelson, then what are *you* saying about Aaron? I'm the one saying Aaron has been good irrespective of the WR crops. You're implying that the WRs make Aaron go from God to "yikes" (or some appreciable distance along that path) just like that.

Of course it doesn't have to be one or the other, but some of both, but I was never arguing really that there's zero non Rodgers impact, just that one explanation for "why they look so average" is "because they are closer to average than people assumed", Rodgers just had been playing at an insane level. Rodgers was bound to slip from infallible eventually, and perhaps if he has that's casting a light on problems people never saw before.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 01/08/2016 4:27:21 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/08/2016 @ 04:31:01 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:21:57 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:29 PM
Besides, if you asked Skip Bayless, it has been 100% the receivers that have given Rodgers the success he has had. Because Rodgers clearly just isn't very good.


I mean, isn't that what you're kind of arguing? I'm the one "arguing with Skip" here.



I don't think I'm arguing anything along these lines. For starters, from the getgo I've been arguing both sides since about week 8. If anything I'm arguing that the receivers aren't blameless. In fact, my original comment I mostly blamed Rodgers for being off his game. You were actually the one that brought up Jordy. I think it's a pretty even combination of Rodgers being off, Nelson being gone, and the other receivers not stepping up into their new roles.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/08/2016 @ 04:34:36 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 04:21:57 PM
If you think any large part of the difference between how Aaron looks now and how Aaron looked before is Jordy Nelson, then what are *you* saying about Aaron? I'm the one saying Aaron has been good irrespective of the WR crops. You're implying that the WRs make Aaron go from God to "yikes" (or some appreciable distance along that path) just like that.



I'm not sure how anything I've said implied the conclusion that you just drew.

I'm saying that with Nelson the Packers probably make a minimum of 2 extra plays a game and thus possibly win 12-13 games this year considering the very specific circumstances (a nominal positive impact could have had that much of a difference considering 4 of the Packers losses came down to plays not being made on the final drive in those games). Where did I say that Nelson made Rodgers look like Ponder. Or better yet, where DIDN'T I say that Rodgers was having an off year?

It just so happens that Rodgers off-year took place in a year where he also lost his best receiver before the season.

There's also a chance we aren't actually arguing at all.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 01/08/2016 4:53:18 pm
scott.jpgScott - 6204 Posts
01/08/2016 @ 04:48:37 PM
 Quote this comment
I'll put this another way. Yes a good Rodgers makes an average receiver better. But, a good Jordy Nelson also makes average receivers better, and not to mention a role playing receiver like Cobb.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
01/08/2016 @ 05:01:49 PM
 Quote this comment
You mean the 11th highest paid WR in the league? emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 01/08/2016 5:02:15 pm
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
01/08/2016 @ 05:04:29 PM
 Quote this comment
Legendary Viking Brett Favre has been named as HOF eligible.
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.