NFL 2006 Season Week 2 Picks

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/14/2006 @ 11:34:54 AM
NutCan's Junior staff members are on top of things this week.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 09/14/2006 @ 11:46:59 AM
Too bad the same cant be said about the rest of the lackadaisical Sr. Staff.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 09/14/2006 @ 12:54:57 PM
There are no early games this week, so I don't see why anyone would want to do their picks before Thursday afternoon.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/14/2006 @ 01:02:18 PM
Because people start looking for them around wednesday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2006 @ 01:06:44 PM
At least keep up with the ESPN Expert Picks, and they usually do their picking on thursday sometime. Thursday should probably the deadline.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/14/2006 @ 02:28:08 PM
It's supposed to be. Or at least that was the General understanding last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 09/14/2006 @ 05:11:26 PM
Yeah, Thursday inclusive.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/14/2006 @ 05:32:19 PM
No, Wednesday night. Actually I thought about "making it live" automatically at midnight Wednesday, whether or not everyone's picks are in, cause that's when people start looking.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 09/14/2006 @ 05:35:00 PM
Who are these people you are referring to?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/14/2006 @ 05:36:47 PM
You know, the peoples. The interweb searchers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/15/2006 @ 09:02:09 AM
Somebody is actually excited to play a team that will probably finish with no more than 6 wins, and that's being generous. With this much enthusiasm, I'm not convinced that K-Rob isn't still drunk or high. It just wouldn't make any sense. Either way, he'll probably return a kick for a touchdown or something like that and we'll forget about the whole thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 09/15/2006 9:02:16 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/15/2006 @ 09:05:31 AM
URGENT!!!! You forgot RAMS vs 49ERS!!!!! URGENT!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/15/2006 @ 09:21:55 AM
Hmm. So I did.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/15/2006 @ 12:56:13 PM
Talk about being lakadaisical.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/15/2006 @ 01:25:20 PM
Well luckily Scott put on on DEFCON 5.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 09/15/2006 @ 01:44:25 PM
DEFCON 5 is actually the lowest level. Maybe that's what you were going for. DEFCON 1 is the highest level.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/15/2006 @ 01:54:17 PM
Actually I meant 4, but I messed the comment up so badly ("on on") that I decided to just leave it all and look like an idiot. Mission Accomplished.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/15/2006 @ 02:26:28 PM
so, are we forgoing the rams-49ers game this week?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/15/2006 @ 02:43:52 PM
I can't add it from work. Well, I can, but I shouldn't.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/15/2006 @ 05:04:38 PM
Ok there it is!! Pick everyone!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2006 @ 12:00:01 PM
ok, and Vikings suck actually I might find myself rooting for the vikings at some point this season. I mean, if the Packers are going to suck, I want one of the North teams to be good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2006 @ 12:36:56 PM
The Packers are a completely different team this week. 3 turnovers already in the first quarter, lots of offense, Driver is playing above his ability so far. Let's play the Saints every week.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2006 @ 01:37:08 PM
that was a more realistic second qtr. I realize that nobody is online, so I'm pretty much just talking to myself.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/17/2006 @ 04:39:59 PM
Turrible. Anyway FYI Jeremy has 175 fantasy pts with 2 players still needing to finish their games. THe next closest is Micah with 105, but he still has 6 players playing. Wow.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/17/2006 @ 07:02:59 PM
I am awesome-o.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 08:18:56 AM
man, if only I had started Vick and Greg Jennings. And Favre played a pretty good game. I actually started him over Jake Delhomme in my other league; it turned out to be a really good move.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 09/18/2006 @ 08:23:08 AM
There's a poll on ESPN right now about "Which is the worst team in the NFL?" and the Packers aren't even a choice! Clearly it's the Raiders anyway (68%), but I'm surprised to see the Lions as a choice instead of the Packers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 09/18/2006 @ 08:32:45 AM
Who's worse, the Bucs or the Raiders. Both are teams with Pirate Mascots, (that's interesting). The Bucs are averaging 1.3 points per game, while the Raiders are averaging a high powered 3 points per game. Man, I'm glad there are still a few teams capable of taking the pressure off Green Bay for being the worst teams in the league.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 08:33:28 AM
the Lions have only scored 13 points in 2 games. I think the Bucs are worse than the Raiders, honestly.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/18/2006 @ 08:33:42 AM
The Buc's woes seem much more curable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/18/2006 @ 08:35:14 AM
probably. But honestly, who should the Packers pick with the number 1 overall draft pick? Is there another guy like reggie bush again this year?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 09/18/2006 @ 02:28:23 PM
I don't follow college football, but I don't think there is. I don't think you're headed for the #1 pick anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/18/2006 @ 04:08:30 PM
Erasmus James (knee) is out for the season with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his left knee.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - many posts 09/18/2006 @ 05:17:26 PM
Time for my week 2 thoughts. I'm pretty pleased with Brad Childress and the Vikings. (There's a great ESPN Magazine article on him in the recent issue.) Obviously, we've had two close wins against opponents of questionable quality, but it's still two wins and the Vikings have played pretty well. One thing I am a little disappointed with, if you can call it that, is Childress's decision (I assume it's his) to kick the long field goal. In the first week the Vikings went for a 54 yard field goal in the fourth quarter. That would have tied Longwell's career long. He missed. In my opinion, that was the third best option there after punting and going for it. This week, in the third quarter, Longwell attempted a 51 yard field goal that was blocked. Again, I felt that it was probably the third best option there, maybe second best. Longwell is a pretty good kicker from deep, but even so, that's good field position to give to a team when you end up missing, especially in a close game. It's a minor complaint, and maybe it seems like I'm nitpicking, but it's bothered me both times. I've now seen Longwell attempt three long field goals this season (1 was in preseason) and if memory serves, he's 0-3. It might mean nothing, but I hope that if he doesn't have the range anymore, we don't keep going for it. Also, among the rules I'd like to see change in football, this might be the top on the list: If you fumble and it goes into the end zone you're going toward and it goes out of bounds, it's a touchback. I've had a problem with this for a little while now, and Matt and I even discussed it yesterday. It's a disproportionate "penalty" for what actually happens. I mean, if you fumble the ball and it goes out of bounds at the half inch line, you retain the ball and get it where you fumbled from. If it goes out a half inch in the end zone, the other team gets the ball at the 20. Now, yes, it's a game of inches and the end zone is different, but why should possession change only on those fumbles? As matt pointed out, other touchbacks occur when the team receiving the kick, or interception, downs the ball or goes out of bounds in the end zone. That team gets the ball at the 20, but they were the team that had the ball anyway. On the fumbling situation, we already know that fumbling out of bounds doesn't change possession in regular territory, so when you fumble out of bounds in the end zone why should that be a touchback situation for the team that otherwise wouldn't have gotten the ball at anywhere else on the field? It doesn't really make much sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 06:18:51 PM
Longwell never had much range. it took a strong wind for him to even get a kickoff into the endzone, and it better have been a really strong wind. As for the fumble rule: what do you suggest? the fumbling team get the ball right where the fumble occured? That doesn't really seem right either, given that if you fumble into your own endzone it would be a safety. I think you are right in saying that the endzones are different. But I do think the current rule is a good one.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 09/18/2006 @ 06:21:55 PM
yeah you get the ball where you fumbled it. Why should the other team get the ball? Maybe the fumbling team could just take it back to the 20.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/18/2006 @ 07:20:42 PM
That rule is bizarre in that generally speaking, whether or not you like a rule, you can see the thought behind it. The tuck rule is lame, but since you can't judge intent just assume they always meant to throw...or something. I can't for the life of me think of what the rationale for this fumble rule is, given that you can no longer advance the football on a fumble. I suspect that it had something to do with adding a risk of running the "fumbalaya."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 09/18/2006 @ 07:23:06 PM
Though if I had one thing to change it would be using college's overtime system. If I had my way with football I would overhaul the sport technologically.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/18/2006 @ 07:27:29 PM
By the way, is it ok to assume everyone would have picked the Rams?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 07:36:49 PM
Yes, everyone picked the Rams. The fumble rule is dumb, I'd say ball on the 10 yard line and the play counts for a down. I'd also use the college overtime and receivers should only need one foot down.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah (Guest) 09/18/2006 @ 07:55:18 PM
Beeeya!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 10:28:24 PM
I don't like the college overtime thing. It just ends up being a surreal chain of events because there end up being 3 and 4 overtimes. By the way, wouldn't that just ruin fantasy in a lot of ways? Anyway, to me it just seems like it's too much of a brand new game. Like, ok we were playing football, now we're playing a game you play in your backyard. I would rather just tweak the nfl current system and either just play an entire quarter more and deal with a few more ties or do a "last ups" type of system where once someone scores you get a chance to match it but you have to drive the length of the field. There would be more ties this way too. By the way, Matt and I discussed this topic too.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jon edited this at 09/18/2006 10:29:21 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/18/2006 @ 10:34:12 PM
NFL overtime is good. Kickoffs are part of football. You can't take that away. You could just play another 7:00 non-sudden death qtr or something like that. But the college rule is kinda lame. Just because it's exciting doesn't make it a good system. should a fumble into your OWN end zone still be a safety? If your answer is "No", than I might agree with you about your gripe. If you think both situations should be where the fumble occured, than I agree. It really can't be one and not the other. And I can see the thought behind the rule. It makes perfect sense to me. I think 2 feet is a good rule too. The game has already whored out for more offense as it is with the "can't breathe on a reciever after five yards" rule. Give defense a few rules now and then. Man, I am Mr. opposite today.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/18/2006 @ 10:35:00 PM
I agree with Jon's most recent comment about overtime.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 10:36:13 PM
Well, the "last ups" is kinda weird, but I agree with the idea of just tweaking the current system.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/18/2006 @ 10:45:15 PM
I don't care about the "excitement" of the college system. My gripe is the sudden deathness of the current overtime system.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 09/18/2006 11:16:09 pm

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 09/18/2006 @ 10:47:44 PM
More offense is almost always better, and despite recent rule changes offenses aren't exactly running rampant this year. They could not count college-style overtime as official stats or something like that. But even the current overtime system isn't really "fair" in the fantasy world. I think we had this discussion last year actually. PS - We want Batch, we want Batch! Actually, I couldn't care less, but someone had to make the comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this at 09/18/2006 10:49:54 pm

	Jon - many posts 09/18/2006 @ 10:49:07 PM
Scott said "should a fumble into your OWN end zone still be a safety? If your answer is "No", than I might agree with you about your gripe. If you think both situations should be where the fumble occured, than I agree. It really can't be one and not the other" I think you can be for one and not the other. Though I don't really care as much about the other rule. But, just thinking out loud, if fumbling out of your own end zone and out of bounds is somewhat like running out of bounds in your own end zone, there really isn't an analog to fumbling forward into the other end zone and out of bounds because they can't give you a touchdown for it. Anyway, depending on how you look at it, I'm probably supporting both arguments. But see it's weird somewhat to be able to fumble out of bounds anywhere in the regular field and not be penalized at all, but if you do it in either end zone, you're screwed. This post probably makes no sense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/19/2006 @ 08:37:07 AM
I don't see why they can't be treated differently. Running out of bounds with the ball is a safety in one and a touchdown in the other.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/19/2006 @ 09:53:23 AM
but you cannot run out of bounds in your opposing teams endzone. Once you are in the endzone you don't come out. It's a touchdown. Say a team is at the 1 yard line and about to score, but they fumble the ball into the endzone. the defending team sees the opportunity to recover it and prevent the other team from scoring a touchdown. the offensive team realizes that they have little chance that they will recover the fumble, but don't want to lose posession, so they do everything they can and ultimately kick the ball out of the endzone, retaining posession at the 1 yard line where they score the next play. Sorry defense, the other team played bush-league and it looks like you lose. Sure this can go both ways, but a defensive team is more likely to try and pounce because the penalty for not getting the ball out of bounds is 7 points. the offense only loses posession.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/19/2006 @ 10:12:59 AM
While I never thought of that situation it still should be pointed out that the team that last had possession could just knock the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field. Also there's no "penalty" for doing that anywhere else on the field. Besides that the rule never comes into play in situations like that. I've only ever seen it happen where a player was reaching for the goal line and lost the ball at the .0000005 yard line where it then crossed inside of the pylon and out of bounds. If they were reaching for a first down at the 1 and lost it at the 1.5 yard line and it went out of bounds the ball would be spotted at the 1.5 yard line. Why does crossing the goal line change things into one of the worst penalties in football? 2 millimeters from scoring a touchdown and now it's the other teams' ball 20 yards up field?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 09/19/2006 @ 11:07:24 AM
while i really don't disagree with you, I stick by the current situation. And the worst penalty in football is having Joe Buck be the play-by-play announcer for your game. It seems that usually the situation is when an offensive player is heading for the endzone and a defender chasing him strips/punches the ball out and it goes out of bounds. In 1996, Robert Brooks did this against the Vikings after a Viking intercepted a pass and Brooks chased him down and punched the ball out of the endzone and the Packers ended up with the ball at the 20. The Vikings still won that game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/20/2006 @ 08:06:45 PM
I kind of only glanced through all of this, but I think they should play a whole nother quarter. No sudden death, whoever gets the ball first has a better chance of winning.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/20/2006 @ 09:35:03 PM
So Twins play on ESPN2 tomorrow. Someone call Charter and make sure we get it. Now if only the White Sox would win this game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.