NFL 2006 Season Week 6 Picks

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 08:57:01 AM
No Packers or Vikings this week. Weird. I can't believe the Packers don't play the Vikings next week. I thought they always played the Vikings after a bye week:)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/13/2006 @ 09:32:57 AM
Seeing as they have the same bye it wouldn't be an advantage. Wait for next year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/13/2006 @ 10:38:58 AM
Go Bears!! Did I just say that. Viking fans and Packer fans have been at each others throats for the past 10 years, we forgot to watch out for the Bears. It's the equivilant of Lost, when Jack and Locke are fighting to be the "leader", and Sawyer is the one that ends up with all the guns, and nobody could see it coming. It's crazy. I've been waiting a while to be able to reference Lost in a real life situation:)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 10/13/2006 @ 11:01:28 AM
Should of kept waiting, that was a bit of a stretch :) The Bears didn't really come out of nowhere, they were pretty much everyone's pick for the division. It's just everyone didn't know they were picking such a powerhouse. So if anything it's sort of like on Lost where they were trying to just get Walt back and captured one of the Others and knew that they now held a few cards, but were unaware that they actually captured the head honcho. The Bears catch lighting in a bottle once in a blue moon and almost always go right back to sucking.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 10/13/2006 @ 12:29:45 PM
agreement on the last sentence. However, I still stand by my original analogy, simply because for the last 10 years or so it has been mainly a battle between the Packers and Vikings. The Bears have had a few bright spots, but last season they kind of came out of no where in the sense that they haven't been good for a while. And in reality, last season wasn't so much that they were good, but that everyone else in the North was so bad. Still, I acknowledge that it was a bit of a stretch.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 10/13/2006 12:30:21 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 12:53:34 PM
It's just a testament to how good of a rivalry the Vikings and Packers have. Unlike the completely one sided joke of a "rivalry" the Packers and Bears are.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 10/13/2006 12:53:42 pm

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/13/2006 @ 12:54:03 PM
Scott's analogy is borderline because even after he had all the guns Sawyer still didn't become the "leader". In fact, he was more like the Lions of the last few years, all the weapons but no results to show for it. Jeremy's analogy makes little to no sense at all. They failed to get Walt back and I don't know that you can say that capturing an Other was a better result. In fact, capturing Henry had nothing at all to do with getting Walt back. And at that point in time Michael was the only one that was that worried about Walt. As for the last point about lightning in a bottle, I think it could be considered catching lightning in a bottle that they once caught lighning a bottle. This really only happened once (at least that I remember I didn't look it up), in 2001. I predict a stretch of at least 5 division titles for the Bears, starting with last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 12:57:53 PM
Your "rivalry" perceptions are biased by the fact that you've lived all you life in one subsection of the state, which just so happens to be pretty close to Minnesota. I never gave the Vikings a second thought until I lived in Eau Claire, it was all about beating the Bears before that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/13/2006 @ 12:59:35 PM
The analogy was that they knew they had something, they just didn't know how big that something really was.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 10/13/2006 @ 01:12:35 PM
My "rivalry" perceptions are based on the fact that the Bears and Packers haven't been a rivalry in our lifetimes. Only a "they're close together, they must hate each other" or a "both teams have been around since 1245" way. If the Vikings sucked and the Packers were good they split and viceversa. If one team swept one year, the other swept the next. The Vikings lose two close games one year and proceed to take the Playoff game. No team has owned another team like the Favre era Packers own the Bears. What's his record against them 234-2? Not only has it been completely one sided but even when it's the Bears' turn the Packers are a horrible team. I can't remember the last time I looked at Bears @ Packers or Packers @ Bears and thought "hmmm....this one could go either way". Of course there are going to be close games here and there but there seem to be more blowouts then a true "rivalry" should allow for. I can see why the Bears fans hate the Packers, I just don't get why the inverse is true. It would be like hating the Lions, what is there to have any emotions one way or another about the Lions?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/13/2006 @ 01:17:24 PM
Wiki - Significant rivalries in the NFL "The three dominant teams in the NFC North division (the Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears) all have long, historic and deeply charged rivalries between them. None of the three rivalries can be seen as "more" intense than any of the others, though the Vikings-Packers rivalry has some of the most vocal fans on both sides of the field."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 02:37:51 PM
You probably just added that in to Wiki yourself and then posted it on the NutCan to make it look legit:) I agree that in terms of sheer rivalry, the 2 teams should be somewhat equal, and the Bears and Packers have never been equal in our lifetimes. The Packers and Vikings, however, have been pretty even in wins-losses against each other. Although you could make the argument that your biggest rival is the team you can't seem to beat (like the Packers vs the Cowboys in the 90's, of the 49ers vs the Packers during that same stretch.) In this case, the Bears situation would qualify		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 03:24:22 PM
It would qualify to the Bears in regards to the Packers. Not the other way around. I didn't so much post the Wiki thing to prove my point, because for one thing I don't agree with it. I just thought it was funny they called our rivalry particularly "vocal" and of the ~500,000 words on Nutcan.com I wouldn't be surprised if 150,000 of them are debating said rivaliry. Perhaps this is exactly the point. Maybe the rivalry is so vocal because it is such a good rivalry. You can usually make a case for either team. Even this year the Vikings look inept but are winning and the Packers show flashes, but aren't winning. There is almost never any debate over who is better midseason when discussing the Packers and Bears.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/13/2006 3:39:54 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 03:28:00 PM
By the way the part I disagree with is that I don't think the Vikings/Bears rivalry is even on the map. Vikings Fans focus 99.9999% of their hate due East.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/13/2006 @ 03:29:12 PM
it's true		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/13/2006 @ 06:12:12 PM
Analogy accepted. Rivalries tend to be more intense when there is balance between the teams, but I don't think there's any rule that says rivalries have to be balanced. The Wiki plays to my earlier point as well. Wiki - Sports rivalry "Simple geographic proximity is frequently sufficient to foster a rivalry." Milwaukee, Madison, even Green Bay and probably some crazy number like 70 percent of the population of Wisconsin is closer to Chicago than the Cities. Here's my analogy. Do Brewer fans way up north hate the Cubs? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe their Twins fans and don't care. Do Brewer fans who live in Milwaukee hate the Cubs? 4 sure! That would be a nemisis Scott, not a rival. And there's more Vikings-Packers smack talk on here because there's no Bear fans to make it worth my while. I wish there were a couple though because I'm sure they would agree that you Vikings fans are just jealous of what we Packer-Bears fans have together.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 10/13/2006 @ 10:16:41 PM
Well obviously geography is a huge part of most rivalries. That was never REALLY my point. My point was that it's a lame rivalry and is basically on life support at this time only being kept alive by proximity and the fact that once a rivalry, always a rivalry. What would you talk smack about? "My team's better because we beat you 52-0 and are 7-0!" "Oh yeah, well my team is in third place in passing yards allowed in the 3rd quarter while losing by more than 10 points, so suck it"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 10/14/2006 @ 01:27:42 PM
Well at the moment I wouldn't have much to instigate with, but when the Packers break up the perfect season in game 16...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/15/2006 @ 03:30:31 PM
talk about balancing out the equation. Last week everyone did awesome, this week everyone is doing terrible		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/16/2006 @ 10:54:09 PM
How bad would it be to be a Cardinals fan right now? They have 24 points and Rex Grossman currently has -8 Fantasy points for Scott's team.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 10/16/2006 @ 11:03:20 PM
God I hate the Bears.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/16/2006 @ 11:09:23 PM
Unbearevable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/16/2006 @ 11:38:22 PM
1 good thing came from this game at least. This is officially the blueprint on how to beat the Chicago Bears. Make Rex do his reads and spread out their defense.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 10/16/2006 @ 11:50:48 PM
Yeah, except that then your offense is on the field, which is also the Bear's best offense. Really, you can't win. Unless you're the Packers in December. But Grossman was terrible. I'm not even sure Favre has looked that bad since maybe the Rams playoff game. I'm fairly certain that he was just closing his eyes and winging the ball downfield.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/17/2006 @ 08:55:36 AM
Holy Crap, the Bears WON? It was like 20-0 when I went to bed, I figured it was over! Wow, I actually thought it was a mistake seeing the Bears name in green up above.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 10/17/2006 @ 09:12:25 AM
They had a defensive touchdown early in the half. The Cardinals had the ball with like 5 minutes to go. The guys in the booth were talking about how all the Cardinals players talk about what their record "should be" and not what it is. Kornheiser said something along the lines of "If you don't win this one give the stadium back, no more football for Arizona." About 5 seconds later the Bears stripped the ball and ran it in again. The Cardinals got the ball back and punted, it was returned for the go ahead point. The Cardinals put together a nice drive to go win it, but missed the go ahead field goal with about 40 seconds left. It was unreal.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 10/17/2006 9:13:22 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/18/2006 @ 10:03:19 AM
Denny Green's Tirade. I've seen worse, but this is pretty good.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.