NFL 2007 Season Week 2 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 2024 Season Week 12 Picks.
Other Nut Canner Picks
Steelers
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Vikings
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Jets
Chargers
Eagles
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Vikings
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Jets
Chargers
Eagles
Week: | 7 - 9 0.438 |
Season: | 17 - 15 0.531 |
Lifetime: | 186 - 113 0.622 |
Steelers
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Jets
Patriots
Commanders
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Jets
Patriots
Commanders
Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
Season: | 22 - 10 0.688 |
Lifetime: | 172 - 126 0.577 |
Steelers
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Packers
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
Season: | 22 - 9 0.710 |
Lifetime: | 153 - 85 0.643 |
Steelers
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
Season: | 21 - 11 0.656 |
Lifetime: | 178 - 118 0.601 |
Steelers
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Packers
Vikings
Cowboys
Seahawks
Raiders
Bears
Jets
Patriots
Commanders
49ers
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Packers
Vikings
Cowboys
Seahawks
Raiders
Bears
Jets
Patriots
Commanders
Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
Season: | 19 - 13 0.594 |
Lifetime: | 19 - 13 0.594 |
Bills
Rams
Bengals
Texans
Colts
Saints
Falcons
Packers
Lions
Dolphins
Cardinals
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Chargers
Eagles
Rams
Bengals
Texans
Colts
Saints
Falcons
Packers
Lions
Dolphins
Cardinals
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Chargers
Eagles
Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
Season: | 20 - 12 0.625 |
Lifetime: | 20 - 12 0.625 |
Steelers
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Vikings
Cowboys
Cardinals
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Vikings
Cowboys
Cardinals
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
Season: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
Lifetime: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
Steelers
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Rams
Bengals
Panthers
Colts
Saints
Jaguars
Giants
Lions
Cowboys
Seahawks
Broncos
Bears
Ravens
Patriots
Eagles
Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
Season: | 20 - 12 0.625 |
Lifetime: | 20 - 12 0.625 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
Vikings 17 @ Lions 20 |
JeremyJoey Harrington and the Lions. That used to just count as 1 win. | |
MattI'm setting the over/under on number of weeks until A-Pete blows out a knee at 6. | |
JonIt's possible that the NFC North is full of one-dimensional teams. This one should be exciting. But in a weird way. When Detroit has the ball, we get to see which squad is better. When Minnesota has the ball, we'll probably just see which team is worse. This early in the season, I'm probably way off on my assessment, but that's what it looks like. | |
SarahThe Lions eeked out a win against an awful Raiders team. I just switched my pick to the Vikings. I hope that doesn't come back to bite me. |
Chargers 14 @ Patriots 38 |
JeremyThe football world is shocked by news that all the joking around was in fact real, Bill Belichick has indeed been stealing his wardrobe from homeless people. | |
MattYou know, I don't really like either of these teams, but I'll go with the Chargers, 24 - 22. | |
JonI really want to choose San Diego. Not really because I want them to win, but more because I don't want to assume New England is as good as we all think they are. Plus, with the whole video taping thing maybe Belichick is actually not focused like he usually would be. But their defense is always good. Almost always. And their offense obviously has talent. San Diego has a new coach. I won't be surprised unless it's a blowout, but I'll pick New England. | |
SarahO those Patriots make me so mad. LT was mad last year when the Patriots beat them in the playoffs, you don't think he's going to run all over those jerks now? Oh there will be some paybacks now bee's. |
Commanders 20 @ Eagles 12 |
JeremySomeone should have informed the Eagles that they aren't really even required to have a punt returner. | |
MattI pass. | |
JonOne bad week isn't going to convince me the Eagles are bad. I think Washington could win this. But I'm leaning toward Philadelphia. Leaning Toward Philadelphia. Wasn't that the sequel to Sleepless in Seattle? No? | |
SarahMaybe the Eagles need some sort of special teams help, just offering some tips. |
Jeremy - Pie Racist 09/14/2007 @ 10:43:06 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Lots of variety in our picks so far. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 12:16:08 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Well I have personally been video taping everyone's picks. |
Alex - 3619 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 01:14:15 PM |
||
---|---|---|
You should make a picks distribution display. If you want to that is. |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 02:28:20 PM |
||
---|---|---|
If I had any idea what that meant I could think about it. |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 06:20:11 PM |
||
---|---|---|
It's Angels in the Outfield Jon |
Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 09/14/2007 @ 06:39:53 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Like on yahoo! I can lookup that only 22.8% of the pickers picked the Packers to win last week. Now that there's 10 people doing picks some computed numbers would be easier to look at then comparing everyone's picks to everyone else's picks. |
Jon - infinity + 1 posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:00:45 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Exactly. I thought about referencing that too. Points for you. |
Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/14/2007 @ 11:08:57 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I thought there was an implied "angels in the outfield" reference but I thought it would cheapen it if I pointed it out. I demand points. |
Jon - 3443 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:11:43 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Yeah I suspected there might be a lot of similarity this week. For one just because the games seem to be set up that way, and as an offshoot of that, week 2 has us work mostly off of just last week. It gives matchups of 1-0 teams vs. 0-1 teams and it's hard for anyone to go out on a limb, even though it's not a big limb. And when it's a tie record situation usually one team still seems better. In short, it seems less cloudy even though after the week is played, we'll see it wasn't as cut and dried (past tense, props to micah) as it seemed probably. Of course, the most glaring disparity in the trend seems to be that most of us picked the winless rams against the 49ers, who won. But if you watched the monday night game that doesn't seem like such a stretch. Maybe I'll look back and see if week 2 has always meant similar picks, but I don't think I'll actually compute it relative to other weeks because that would be time consuming. |
Jon - 3443 Posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:12:02 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 11:08:57 PM I thought there was an implied "angels in the outfield" reference but I thought it would cheapen it if I pointed it out. I demand points. I'm fresh out. Implied or implode? |
||
Jon screwed with this at 09/14/2007 11:12:43 pm |
Jon - many posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:22:07 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I looked. Week 2's have actually had pretty good variety. Maybe it's just the way these broke down. Maybe it's because we take it a bit more seriously than the first year or two, but then again, the recent years had variety. I guess my theory doesn't have a lot going for it. Of course, it's not a great sample size since it's only four of us for many years and we usually differ on the Minnesota and Green Bay games anyway, and I think matt did his picks blindfolded for the first four years. |
Jon - infinity + 1 posts 09/14/2007 @ 11:24:58 PM |
||
---|---|---|
To Jeremy's credit though, I think his comments are extra good this week. You know, if people actually ever read them. |
Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 09/15/2007 @ 12:10:51 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Jon Wrote - 09/14/2007 @ 11:22:07 PM and I think matt did his picks blindfolded for the first four years. Actually, I did (and still do) my picks based on my perceptions of the NFL circa 1996. |
PackOne - 1528 Posts 09/15/2007 @ 12:32:50 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Look for PackOne to take a slight edge this week. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 09/15/2007 @ 09:54:19 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Commet about last week's Packer game: Mason's Crosby's first career field attempt was a 53-yarder which he drilled. I wonder how many kickers have their first career attempt over 50 yards, and I wonder of those kickers, how many make that long debut. Anyone care to dig this one up? This is especially interesting because Should Crosby go on to have a long career, he could run the possibility of never kicking a longer field goal than his first ever attempt. I'm guessing that has never happened before, at least not in the "modern" era of kickers (meaning the soccer-style kicking). |
Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 09/16/2007 @ 12:16:58 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Hey Carl, pick your last game would you. You get to be the first person to use the new fangled picker. Let me know how it goes. (Also, don't feel pressured to make the pick if you are abstaining due to your covering of the game in the booth. I know those guys like to remain impartial until 9 seconds into the game, when they declare a favorite.) | ||
Jeremy messed with this at 09/16/2007 12:23:21 am |
Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 09/16/2007 @ 10:12:53 AM |
||
---|---|---|
So how is that with the "computations" then, Alex? |
Micah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way! 09/16/2007 @ 12:06:56 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Can I still make 1:00 game picks? Steelers 49ers Bengals Panthers Colts Saint Jags Packers |
Sarah - So's your face 09/16/2007 @ 12:17:06 PM |
||
---|---|---|
You need to call them 12:00 games since the Nut is located in the CST location, so that negates your picks right away. Plus the timestamp shows you made them almost 7 minutes after the start of the games, which gives you a slight edge over the rest of us. |
Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 09/16/2007 @ 12:38:24 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Winner! |
Micah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way! 09/16/2007 @ 01:26:41 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Games start at 1:05 |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/16/2007 @ 01:33:54 PM |
||
---|---|---|
they go to the games at 12. still late |
Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 09/16/2007 @ 02:45:26 PM |
||
---|---|---|
So do other teams actively TRY to lose to the Packers? |
Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/16/2007 @ 03:10:21 PM |
||
---|---|---|
What a weird wonderful wacky week so far. |
Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/16/2007 @ 03:38:08 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I'd say that was a rather dominating performance by the Packers in every aspect of the game. Hurt or not, Eli never seemed comfortable. I mean, sure, he did throw the ball directly to the packers defensive lineman at the end there, but man, what way to play on the road. For all you Thompson haters out there, the Packers are 2-0 because of their defense, which is what people seem to complain the most about in terms of his personnel decision making. Anyway, Favre looked brilliant despite only having 1 wide receiver out there. The Packers are 2-0 for the first time in a while. Bring on the Chargers. |
Sarah - So's your face 09/16/2007 @ 03:47:25 PM |
||
---|---|---|
You think Justin Harrell helped us out there? | ||
Sarah edited this at 09/16/2007 3:48:53 pm |
Scott - Resident Tech Support 09/16/2007 @ 04:01:30 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Hey, a questionable (or downright bad) pick here and there is inevitable (and he still might turnout to be ok), but from my vantage point their defense looks as good as it has looked in a long time. |
Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/16/2007 @ 04:58:16 PM |
||
---|---|---|
But maybe if we're doing alright on defense, an offensive pick might've helped 10-fold? |
Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/16/2007 @ 08:21:51 PM |
||
---|---|---|
My point is that while Justin Harrel may not have been the smartest pick (although who knows, he could be starting and dominating in 2 years), the alternative may very well also have been another defensive player. Anyway, the Packers are 2-0 and that's really all I care about at this point. And in my opinion, the Packers' success this year is going to come in large part because of their defense. |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 07:35:41 AM |
||
---|---|---|
My point is we could've picked an offensive player. |
Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 09/17/2007 @ 09:20:03 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Scott Wrote - 09/16/2007 @ 08:21:51 PM My point is that while Justin Harrel may not have been the smartest pick (although who knows, he could be starting and dominating in 2 years), the alternative may very well also have been another defensive player. Anyway, the Packers are 2-0 and that's really all I care about at this point. And in my opinion, the Packers' success this year is going to come in large part because of their defense. It also really depends if you feel both wins were truly wins, or if they were simply a decision of which team was lucky enough to be on top after the time ran out. I didn't get to see week 1 until the last 3 minutes and not much of week 2 either, but from what I hear, week 1 wasn't the best show in town. |
||
Carlos44ec screwed with this at 09/17/2007 9:20:32 am |
Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 12:13:16 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Week 2 was a Packer team beating the Giants handily. Sure the giants made some mistakes, but 35-13 is hardly a fluke. |
Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 09/17/2007 @ 12:35:09 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Well, let's say hypothetically the Giants don't decide to get two penalties (Skockey's 'spike' and Toomer's knee-dive/leg-swatting/shoving-hitting thing he did as if to say "I'm not stopping and I'm just going to try different things until I get a penalty") that end their drives and Eli doesn't inexplicably lob an INT to a d-lineman 2 feet away. The game could have played out very differently. It was a resounding defeat to be sure, but the Giants deserve a little blame for ensuring their defeat. You can't always just subtract the scores and use that number to decide if one team dominated another or not. Sometimes games are closer than they "were", they look like blowouts when a team was in fact consistently able to drive the ball, other times a team crushes another team but some garbage time scoring against the second string D playing prevent defense lets the team close the gap a bit. Let's say a team has the ball on the one yard line with 1 second left and are 7 points down. Instead of scoring they throw an int that gets returned for a td. Someone looking at just the score the next day would call a 14 point victory a pretty solid margin, when in reality the game came down to one last-second play over a yard. In other words the packers clearly won, and deserved to win, but they didn't outright dominate the other team as a 35-13 margin would generally indicate. The Giants were putting together consistent drives on the defense, until they did something stupid to kill their own drive. (And yes, I know a consistent drive in and of itself is worth 0 points) Edit: The Lions-Vikings game was a good example of a game where a close score doesn't really tell the story. The Lions drove up, down, and allover, on the Vikings, who themselves looked completely baffled on offense. The Lions had their way with the Vikings all day on both sides of the ball, but circumstance and some bad breaks sent the game to OT. (After the Vikings could have won on a Longwell kick off the post, no less.) |
||
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 09/17/2007 12:48:19 pm |
Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 01:00:29 PM |
||
---|---|---|
yeah, but I watched the game, I'm not looking at 35-13 and being like, wow, 23 points is a blowout. It actually didn't even seem that close to be honest, especially when it seemed the like the Packers offense couldn't hardly be stopped in the 2nd half. Either way, the Packers got 2 wins against teams that I hard marked down as losses at the beginning of the season. I'm not sounding the Super Bowl horn or anything, but like we hear a lot on this site, a win is a win. |
Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 09/17/2007 @ 01:23:35 PM |
||
---|---|---|
A win is a win, but I still would have felt a little dirty had the Vikings pulled it out. That's called being a "homer". |
||
Jeremy messed with this at 09/17/2007 1:27:49 pm |
Scott - 6225 Posts 09/17/2007 @ 07:05:46 PM |
||
---|---|---|
can we just agree that the Packers are indeed the best team in the League and that Brett Favre is the best Favre that ever Favred. |
Carlos44ec - ...and Bob's your Uncle! 09/17/2007 @ 07:21:58 PM |
||
---|---|---|
word |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 09:35:59 AM |
||
---|---|---|
By the way, I declare an * on Micah's record for the week, and therefor declare Alex the winner by whatever margin an asterisk is worth. |
Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 09/19/2007 @ 09:41:06 AM |
||
---|---|---|
your asterisk is worth nothing. It's not Micah's fault the Eagles couldn't cut it. |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 09:46:52 AM |
||
---|---|---|
What in the hell are you talking about? What do the Eagles have to do with anything? |
Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 09/19/2007 @ 12:08:25 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I figured you were upset that the Eagles lost, since "they weren't supposed to" and made a crack at Micah for picking them and tying Alex (and then making Alex the winnner). It was a really nice piece of deductive reasoning, I'd say |
Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/19/2007 @ 12:10:28 PM |
||
---|---|---|
No, Micah didn't get his picks in on time and they were granted to him after the fact. |
Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/19/2007 @ 12:42:20 PM |
||
---|---|---|
One, Micah is on the East Coast, where they have different time. Two, Micah lives in New York, where aparently their minutes are different than ours. It's a wonder he made his picks at all! |
Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/19/2007 @ 12:51:36 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/19/2007 @ 09:35:59 AM By the way, I declare an * on Micah's record for the week, and therefor declare Alex the winner by whatever margin an asterisk is worth. I conquer. I mean concur. |
Micah - I didn't make that! It fell out of your hair that way! 09/19/2007 @ 10:10:26 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I actually went on Yahoo after I made the picks and the only information that was showed was that they Giants were in the red zone. Being that I picked the Packers, you can asterisk all you want....my conscience is clear :) We do have very different minutes here, but we definitely do not grow big corn here. |
Jon - 3443 Posts 09/20/2007 @ 03:57:30 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Micah Wrote - 09/19/2007 @ 10:10:26 PM I actually went on Yahoo after I made the picks and the only information that was showed was that they Giants were in the red zone. Being that I picked the Packers, you can asterisk all you want....my conscience is clear :) Ah Ha! You picked the Packers! Everyone of course knows that pick was informed by the happenings in the game up to that point. Even if you didn't look at Yahoo until after. Why do we know? because you clearly followed the second most famous rule in football picks. The first is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well-known is to "always pick the Packers when playing in New York and allowing an early red zone drive!" Your witness. |
Jon - 3443 Posts 09/20/2007 @ 06:18:22 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Here's an interesting survey to take. |
Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/20/2007 @ 07:21:59 AM |
||
---|---|---|
I particularily like question number 7. Or that the Giants problems are all related to Eli. Classic. | ||
Scott messed with this at 09/20/2007 7:23:13 am |
Sarah - So's your face 09/20/2007 @ 07:48:05 AM |
||
---|---|---|
LT IS a bum and my Fantasy team IS in shambles Edit: We all knew about Favre before this season, we all answered D prior to this even being a question. |
||
Sarah messed with this at 09/20/2007 7:54:11 am |
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name: | |||
Comment: | |||
| |||
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.
Packers 35 @ Giants 13
Jeremy
Someone should have told the Giants to always guard your starters closely when Green Bay is due up soon....oh crap. Adriaaaaaan!!Matt
Yeah, the Packers won't get lucky 2 weeks in a row, even with half the Giants out with injuries.Jon
I had to think about this one for a while. But here's the thing: The Packers can't get the game handed to them every week. I admit, they apparently had a good defensive week last week. But they still didn't do anything other than recover fumbles on special teams. I think I'm obligated to now say that the Hefty Lefty will overpower the Packers defense. Although it will probably be more like the Packers just not scoring.Sarah
Last week's game was ugly, but it was a win. I thought we would be 2-2 after September, but now I see us being 3-1. Yay!! Brett Favre.