NFL 2015 Season Week 3 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 2016 Season Super Bowl Picks.

Jeremy's PicksMatt's PicksJon's PicksSarah's Picks
Redskins 21 @ Giants 32
Final
Thu, 9/24/15 7:25pm
2 Picks - 11% 16 Picks - 89%
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Giants
Bengals 28 @ Ravens 24
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
15 Picks - 79% 4 Picks - 21%
Ravens
Ravens
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Bengals
Steelers 12 @ Rams 6
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
18 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Steelers
Colts 35 @ Titans 33
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
17 Picks - 89% 2 Picks - 11%
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Colts
Titans
Titans
Eagles 24 @ Jets 17
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
4 Picks - 21% 15 Picks - 79%
Jets
Jets
Eagles
Eagles
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jets
Jaguars 17 @ Patriots 51
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Patriots
Chargers 14 @ Vikings 31
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
6 Picks - 32% 13 Picks - 68%
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Vikings
Buccaneers 9 @ Texans 19
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
5 Picks - 26% 14 Picks - 74%
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Texans
Falcons 39 @ Cowboys 28
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
17 Picks - 89% 2 Picks - 11%
Falcons
Falcons
Cowboys
Cowboys
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Falcons
Raiders 27 @ Browns 20
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
3 Picks - 16% 16 Picks - 84%
Browns
Browns
Raiders
Raiders
Browns
Browns
Browns
Browns
Saints 22 @ Panthers 27
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
Panthers
49ers 7 @ Cardinals 47
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 3:05pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Cardinals
Bills 41 @ Dolphins 14
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 3:25pm
12 Picks - 63% 7 Picks - 37%
Bills
Bills
Dolphins
Dolphins
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bills
Bears 0 @ Seahawks 26
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 3:25pm
0 Picks - 0% 19 Picks - 100%
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Seahawks
Broncos 24 @ Lions 12
Final
Sun, 9/27/15 7:30pm
18 Picks - 95% 1 Pick - 5%
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Broncos
Chiefs 28 @ Packers 38
Final
Mon, 9/28/15 7:30pm
3 Picks - 16% 16 Picks - 84%
Packers
Packers
Chiefs
Chiefs
Packers
Packers
Packers
Packers
Week Record13 - 3
0.812
13 - 3
0.812
14 - 2
0.875
First Place
13 - 3
0.812
Season Record32 - 16
0.667
29 - 19
0.604
30 - 18
0.625
26 - 22
0.542
Scotttime Record1533 - 914
0.626
1473 - 974
0.602
1527 - 920
0.624
1535 - 912
0.627
No-Pack-Vike Record2228 - 1294
0.633
2159 - 1363
0.613
2231 - 1291
0.633
2214 - 1308
0.629
Lifetime Record2210 - 1304
0.629
2084 - 1430
0.593
2197 - 1317
0.625
2194 - 1320
0.624
click me!
Other Nut Canner Picks
scott.jpg
Giants
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Lions
Packers

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:27 - 21
0.562
Lifetime:1546 - 893
0.634
newalex.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Rams
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:28 - 20
0.583
Lifetime:1365 - 814
0.626
goodlooking.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:12 - 4
0.750
Lifetime:1227 - 796
0.607
image.jpeg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:14 - 2
0.875
Season:33 - 14
0.702
Lifetime:619 - 387
0.615
gove.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:31 - 16
0.660
Lifetime:441 - 244
0.644
skull full.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Raiders
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:14 - 2
0.875
Season:20 - 12
0.625
Lifetime:569 - 351
0.619
IMG_498362853876.jpeg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Chiefs

Week:13 - 3
0.812
Season:28 - 20
0.583
Lifetime:941 - 595
0.613
question_mark.gif
Redskins
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:12 - 4
0.750
Lifetime:764 - 446
0.631
question_mark.gif
Giants
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:29 - 19
0.604
Lifetime:981 - 507
0.659
hambone.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:14 - 2
0.875
Season:32 - 16
0.667
Lifetime:893 - 479
0.651
IMG003.jpg
Redskins
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Chiefs

Week:11 - 5
0.688
Season:24 - 24
0.500
Lifetime:789 - 445
0.639
2015-08-23 17.06.53.jpg
WAS @ NYG - No Pick
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:13 - 2
0.867
Season:29 - 18
0.617
Lifetime:313 - 180
0.635
IMG_20131124_132302_774.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Cowboys
Raiders
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:28 - 20
0.583
Lifetime:228 - 127
0.642
1441860133743826163568.jpg
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:28 - 20
0.583
Lifetime:204 - 109
0.652
question_mark.gif
Giants
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers

Week:12 - 4
0.750
Season:26 - 21
0.553
Lifetime:26 - 21
0.553
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!

Redskins 21 @ Giants 32

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Eli is bound to turn this team around at some point. Maybe this week. If they haven't hit an all time low, then they don't make the playoffs. 0-2 is fairly low, especially considering how they've lost.
jon.jpg
Jon
Washington is better, I guess. Than they were. I realized that if this is the case, I shouldn't be surprised since they have a good GM now, according to an article I read a few months back. This Thursday night football is needy though. Gotta do the picks, gotta set the lineups. I don't need this in my week. In all honesty, I don't hate it as much as I like to say I do, but boy it's annoying. Needy.

Chargers 14 @ Vikings 31

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Vikings did a complete 180 for week 2, Chargers aren't great, advantage Minnesota.
jon.jpg
Jon
I dunno, Vikings are the home team.

Broncos 24 @ Lions 12

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Someone convince me Peyton Manning still has it. Forget the stats and wins I need something intangible. Since he keeps proving me wrong, I'll go with the Broncos for some reason.
jon.jpg
Jon
The Lions are just the Lions.

Chiefs 28 @ Packers 38

sarah.jpg
Sarah
Andy Reid vs Mike McCarthy, oh goody, ineptitude reigns supreme. Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance.
jon.jpg
Jon
Kansas City trying to break up the perfect season.
scott.jpgScott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on?
09/22/2015 @ 12:38:57 PM
 Quote this comment
Interesting stat about the Chiefs-Packers game: the Packers have never beaten the Chiefs in Green Bay. Like, ever. And the Packers have only beaten the Chiefs once since 1987. I'm sure that will be a factor.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
09/22/2015 @ 02:40:12 PM
 Quote this comment
>Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance.

That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while.

One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this at 09/22/2015 2:55:14 pm
sarah.jpgSarah - 3859 Posts
09/22/2015 @ 03:35:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:40:12 PM
>Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance.

That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while.

One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB.


Are you picking a fight with me?emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8759 Posts
09/23/2015 @ 12:26:03 AM
 Quote this comment
emoticon

I did forget the emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 09/23/2015 12:26:16 am
scott.jpgScott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings
09/23/2015 @ 08:44:56 AM
 Quote this comment
I'm waiting for a certain someone's head to explode at the news that Kam Chancellor might return exactly 1 week after the Seahawks played the Packers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6203 Posts
09/23/2015 @ 08:50:39 AM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:35:02 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:40:12 PM
>Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers the guy Ted Thompson drafted--over the staunch objections of his head coach and guy who was the GM the year prior--and made the tough decision to transition away from the HOF QB who had decided to retire only to rescind that retirement decision and go with the 4th year backup quarterback who was better than anyone knew and who probably would have demanded a trade or left the following year if he was looked over yet again is on the field, they've got a good chance.

That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while.

One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB.


Are you picking a fight with me?emoticon


Sarah, I fixed it for you.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 09/23/2015 8:52:21 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
09/23/2015 @ 09:38:51 AM
 Quote this comment
That, or the potential number one pick fell in his lap. There was no transition at all. Not even a hint of it at the time, just the fact that football players don't play forever. They chose Favre over Rodgers many many times, including that last season. Reportedly it wasn't until that final season, where they agreed to let Favre come back after much hemming and hawing, only to be followed up by him have 57th thoughts and pulling back again weeks shy of the season that they FINALLY decided it was time. They chose Favre every time, right up until the point where it was almost impossible to do so, because you can't not know about your QB within a stone's throw of the season.

Even if you wanted to give credit to him for pulling the trigger on drafting him, that's one good move, that potentially masks every other one, and arguably a very shoddy job at managing his cap masquerading as "doing it right", because he can almost never afford a free agent if he wanted to (but somehow we ignore that he's quick to whenever they can actually afford to squeeze a FA in-between giving every DB he's ever drafted 9 million per season and Bubba Franks being paid about 20 times too much.)


Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 7 times, last at 09/23/2015 9:57:46 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8759 Posts
09/23/2015 @ 09:39:14 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:44:56 AM
I'm waiting for a certain someone's head to explode at the news that Kam Chancellor might return exactly 1 week after the Seahawks played the Packers.


That was always a given.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
09/23/2015 @ 11:15:32 AM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:38:51 AM
That, or the potential number one pick fell in his lap. There was no transition at all. Not even a hint of it at the time, just the fact that football players don't play forever. They chose Favre over Rodgers many many times, including that last season. Reportedly it wasn't until that final season, where they agreed to let Favre come back after much hemming and hawing, only to be followed up by him have 57th thoughts and pulling back again weeks shy of the season that they FINALLY decided it was time. They chose Favre every time, right up until the point where it was almost impossible to do so, because you can't not know about your QB within a stone's throw of the season.

Even if you wanted to give credit to him for pulling the trigger on drafting him, that's one good move, that potentially masks every other one, and arguably a very shoddy job at managing his cap masquerading as "doing it right", because he can almost never afford a free agent if he wanted to (but somehow we ignore that he's quick to whenever they can actually afford to squeeze a FA in-between giving every DB he's ever drafted 9 million per season and Bubba Franks being paid about 20 times too much.)




emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
09/29/2015 @ 09:58:00 AM
 Quote this comment
For what it's worth, the Packers had one of those "why didn't they at least take a measurement on a really really close first down on a 4th down play" towards the end of the game last night. I don't know that it wasn't a first down, and the Packers didn't have any timeouts with which to challenge it, but the announcers seemed puzzled about not only the spot but the lack of measurement as the spot appeared short of--or, generously, right at--the yellow line.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8759 Posts
09/29/2015 @ 11:55:00 AM
 Quote this comment
Did the Chiefs run a play before anyone signaled anything which wouldn't have given you a chance to challenge if you could have because no one knew what the situation was?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated
09/29/2015 @ 01:23:43 PM
 Quote this comment
There was a hurt Packer player which the refs blew the whistle for an it looked like most players and coaches didn't know why the whistle was blown. Does that count? Also it wasn't "really really close", he was short by a full yard (if the spot would have been where it was supposed to be).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this 2 times, last at 09/29/2015 1:24:28 pm
scott.jpgScott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone!
09/29/2015 @ 02:39:11 PM
 Quote this comment
It doesn't count, Alex. Or at least the 17 other gifts that the Packers got from the refs all night offset any suspected questionable calls that may have hurt the Packers (that is, only if you are wearing rose-colored Packer glasses). Also, I think the Chiefs may have had an injured player, so obviously the outcome of the game was already tilted in the Packers favor, because football.

The Chiefs were in hurry up mode and the only reason they didn't run a play in the manner described in Jeremy's comment is likely because of the whistle for the injured Packer, and because it was a 17--err, 16--yard gain and required 22 players get back to the line of scrimmage. But the fact that delay is all the more reason why it's questionable that was no measurement. It's one thing to be in hurry up mode and have the offense get to the line and snap the ball right away to a) not lose clock time, or b) prevent the opposition from challenging; I'd say that happens fairly often. It seems worse, given how the two events have been described, to have a bad spot that still appears to be close at best and behind the line at worst and have no measurement when there is a whistle blown and time for the refs to talk about it compared to a similar situation with a winding clock inside of 3 minutes with a frantic offense trying desperately to get the next snap off as soon as possible.

And regarding my "really really close" choice of words, it was a bone thrown because I didn't have a replay in front of me. My first thoughts at the time was "how did they spot the ball at the first down line when his body never got to the line", but I didn't want to seem like I was totally claiming we got hugely screwed. That and the spot (bad as it may have been) probably was "really really close", but it was still short of the yellow line, which I know isn't official, but is generally a good indicator of what's close and what isn't, which likely should have prompted a measurement.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 09/29/2015 2:44:26 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8759 Posts
09/29/2015 @ 03:39:03 PM
 Quote this comment
Kettle, meet pot. Pot, kettle.

There are of course never any legitimate differences in the situations, only tinted glasses.

Bad spots happen all the time, that isn't the quibble here. In the Viking game the ball WAS spotted behind the line of gain, then, the Lions just ran a play before anyone figured out anything. So, that too is different, and no, it's not worse that the refs communicated, even if they were wrong on the spot. Refs can stop the game any time, so that's a moot point who is or isn't in hurry up, at best. The fact that the play in the Viking game should have been, at worst, a measurement, was never the crux of the matter there.

Take the play as you described and say the refs *actually spotted the ball* where you both say it should have been, a fan-yard short of the line of gain, now pretend the Chiefs just kept going, based on some weird miscommunication or something inexplicable between the marking the play and spotting the ball, and to put the cherry on the top, there wasn't even an outwardly sign of the miscommunication/mistep that awarded the first down, before anyone knew anything it was in the books, and no one said anything about the fact that they turned it over on downs 2 plays ago. It wasn't a "bad spot" issue.

Surely, even if we could haggle over if the Viking play "really" played out that way or not, you can see how these two situations are actually different situations, right?

Also, small point, but are you saying that 17 breaks the Packers got from the refs wouldn't be a relevent point to make if they got one bad one?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 09/29/2015 6:53:24 pm
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.