NFL 2007 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 2024 Season Week 12 Picks.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Bills 7 @ Patriots 38 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Rams 3 @ Buccaneers 24 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Buccaneers
 |
Buccaneers
|
Buccaneers
|
Buccaneers
|
||||
| Cardinals 23 @ Ravens 26 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Ravens
 |
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
||||
| Vikings 10 @ Chiefs 13 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Chiefs
 |
||||
| Lions 21 @ Eagles 56 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Lions
 |
Eagles
 |
Eagles
|
Lions
|
||||
| 49ers 16 @ Steelers 37 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Chargers 24 @ Packers 31 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Chargers
 |
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
Packers
 |
||||
| Colts 30 @ Texans 24 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| Dolphins 28 @ Jets 31 Final Sun, 9/23/07 12:00pm
|
Dolphins
 |
Jets
 |
Dolphins
|
Jets
|
||||
| Jaguars 23 @ Broncos 14 Final Sun, 9/23/07 3:05pm
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| Browns 24 @ Raiders 26 Final Sun, 9/23/07 3:05pm
|
Raiders
 |
Browns
 |
Raiders
|
Raiders
|
||||
| Bengals 21 @ Seahawks 24 Final Sun, 9/23/07 3:05pm
|
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Seahawks
 |
Bengals
|
||||
| Giants 24 @ Commanders 17 Final Sun, 9/23/07 3:15pm
|
Commanders
 |
Commanders
|
Commanders
|
Commanders
|
||||
| Panthers 27 @ Falcons 20 Final Sun, 9/23/07 3:15pm
|
Panthers
 |
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
||||
| Cowboys 34 @ Bears 10 Final Sun, 9/23/07 7:15pm
|
Cowboys
 |
Cowboys
|
Bears
 |
Bears
|
||||
| Titans 31 @ Saints 14 Final Mon, 9/24/07 7:30pm
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
Saints
|
Titans
 |
||||
| Week Record | 8 - 8 0.500  | 9 - 7 0.562 | 9 - 7 0.562 | 11 - 5 0.688 | ||||
| Season Record | 28 - 20 0.583 | 27 - 21 0.562 | 30 - 18 0.625 | 31 - 17 0.646 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 193 - 122 0.613 | 179 - 136 0.568 | 180 - 135 0.571 | 183 - 132 0.581 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3376 - 1964 0.632 | 3291 - 2049 0.616 | 3398 - 1942 0.636 | 3292 - 2048 0.617 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 870 - 512 0.629 | 790 - 592 0.572 | 850 - 532 0.615 | 842 - 540 0.609 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Chiefs
Eagles
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Browns
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 27 - 21 0.562 |
| Lifetime: | 196 - 119 0.622 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Chiefs
Eagles
Steelers
Packers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Cowboys
Saints
| Week: | 13 - 3 0.812 |
| Season: | 35 - 13 0.729 |
| Lifetime: | 185 - 129 0.589 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Vikings
Lions
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 31 - 16 0.660 |
| Lifetime: | 162 - 92 0.638 |
Rams
Ravens
Vikings
Eagles
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Cowboys
Saints
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 31 - 17 0.646 |
| Lifetime: | 188 - 124 0.603 |
Buccaneers
Cardinals
Vikings
Lions
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Bengals
Giants
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Season: | 8 - 8 0.500 |
| Lifetime: | 72 - 52 0.581 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Vikings
Lions
Steelers
Packers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Bengals
Commanders
Panthers
Cowboys
Titans
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 30 - 18 0.625 |
| Lifetime: | 30 - 18 0.625 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Vikings
Eagles
Steelers
Packers
Colts
Dolphins
Broncos
Browns
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 29 - 19 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 29 - 19 0.604 |
![IMG_3063[1].jpg](/images/thumbnail.php?height=18&file=/uploads/IMG_3063[1].jpg){kind=small}
Rams
Cardinals
Vikings
Eagles
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Browns
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 7 - 9 0.438 |
| Season: | 16 - 16 0.500 |
| Lifetime: | 16 - 16 0.500 |
Buccaneers
Ravens
Vikings
Lions
Steelers
Chargers
Colts
Jets
Broncos
Raiders
Seahawks
Commanders
Panthers
Bears
Saints
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 29 - 19 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 29 - 19 0.604 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Chargers 24 @ Packers 31 | |
 | JeremyLT is angry, you don't want to see him when he gets angry. |
 | SarahThis would be a sweet sweet victory. I believe in sports miracles. And I believe in Brett Favre. |
 | MattIs Phillip Rivers the new Trent Green? Discuss. |
 | JonCongrats to Brett Favre for setting the wins record.This isn't an insult, but I was thinking about this situation lately. In SAT-style, Barry Bonds : Alex Rodriguez :: Brett Favre : Peyton Manning |
| Cowboys 34 @ Bears 10 | |
| JeremyThe Bears still suck. Cowboys 24-13. |
| SarahIt'd be nice for the Bears to lose. Not that I like the resurgence of the Cowboys. |
| MattThis game should have an asterisk by it because of Wade Wilson's HGH use and his involvement with both teams. |
| JonNobody ever says about Rex Grossman, "He doesn't put up huge stats, but he just wins games." |
| Titans 31 @ Saints 14 | |
| JeremyWhat's the deal with the Saints? I've been saying all offseason they have "One Year Wonder" written all over them, but they should still be better than this, shouldn't they? |
| SarahI was really starting to root for the saints. Turns out they were a one hit wonder. I like the Titans and Vince Young. Remember how he beat USC? Yea I've really got nothing for these. |
| MattI think this is the game where the Saints start to click. I could be wrong though. |
| JonA lot of people say about Vince Young, "He doesn't put up huge stats, but he just wins games."I'm not exactly sure what point I'm trying to make, if any. |
  | Matt - Ombudsman 09/21/2007 @ 02:11:16 AM |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy: The Bears still suck. Cowboys 24-13 Jeremy needs to stop stealing my shtick. |
Yours:
 
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
| Matt messed with this at 09/21/2007 2:12:18 am | ||
 | Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/21/2007 @ 02:49:50 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| This is sort of "bet-hedging," but I was seriously considering the Texans until I remembered that Johnson is out. I think they've played them tough in the past at home. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 3443 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 02:59:36 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Not that I'm starting a weekly tribute to Jeremy (although wouldn't that be great?), but I really like the new logos in the picks. Nice work there. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 07:23:49 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
My thoughts on the Chargers-Packers game: The Packers defense will be put to the test for sure. They're ability to stop the run will tested like no other point in the season. However, I say if the Chargers are going to beat the Packers at something, it should be with the run. The Packers defense needs to make the Chargers passing game non-existent. If they can do this, that could create some problems and could help slow the running game down. On offense, the Packers MUST do a better job on the ground. Last week, the Packers seemed to be running their obligatory 1 yard run on first down, pass, pass, 1 yard run on first down, pass, pass, etc. On one drive in particular (they did score a touchdown however), they ran the ball almost every first down of the drive only to be left with a 2nd and 9 at best each time. Their young running backs must be able to average at least 4 yards per carry, especially if they are going to run regularly on first down. The Packers simply can't end up with 2nd and long every single time. That being said, if the Packers find a way to win this game, I will start to actually believe the things I've been saying about this team. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 09:00:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 02:59:36 AM Not that I'm starting a weekly tribute to Jeremy (although wouldn't that be great?), but I really like the new logos in the picks. Nice work there. You mean in the picks up above or the new fading picks page thing? Edit: Also, welcome back Jumbo 12. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 09/21/2007 9:01:41 am | ||
 | Alex - 3619 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 01:11:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 07:23:49 AM Last week, the Packers seemed to be running their obligatory 1 yard run on first down, pass, pass, 1 yard run on first down, pass, pass, etc. On one drive in particular (they did score a touchdown however), they ran the ball almost every first down of the drive only to be left with a 2nd and 9 at best each time. Their young running backs must be able to average at least 4 yards per carry, especially if they are going to run regularly on first down. You don't necessarily want to use all your best plays and show your hand in the 2nd half of the 2nd game when you're winning. I don't actually know if this drive you're referencing was in the 2nd half, but I think you get my point. |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
 | Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 09/21/2007 @ 01:14:06 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
"Matt: Is Phillip Rivers the new Trent Green? Discuss." Yes. Except instead of a new QB coming to take his place and win a superbowl, he effectively was the reason they let go of the QB that would have won them a superbowl. But he's a dead ringer for fantasy football purposes. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - 3619 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 01:14:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| How can anyone pick the Bengals this week? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/21/2007 @ 03:59:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 01:11:11 PM You don't necessarily want to use all your best plays and show your hand in the 2nd half of the 2nd game when you're winning. I don't actually know if this drive you're referencing was in the 2nd half, but I think you get my point. The drive I was talking about was in the 2nd half. In fact, it was the first drive of the 2nd half. Green Bay - 14:52 1st-10, GB49 14:52 B. Jackson rushed to the left for 1 yard gain 2nd-9, 50 14:15 B. Favre passed to K. Hall down the middle for 10 yard gain 1st-10, NYG40 13:46 B. Jackson rushed to the left for 1 yard gain 2nd-9, NYG39 13:14 B. Favre passed to K. Hall to the left for 10 yard gain 1st-10, NYG29 12:32 D. Wynn rushed to the left for 1 yard loss 2nd-11, NYG30 11:44 B. Favre passed to J. Jones to the right for 5 yard gain 3rd-6, NYG25 11:01 B. Favre passed to J. Jones to the right for 17 yard gain 1st-8, NYG8 10:37 B. Jackson rushed up the middle for 3 yard loss 2nd-11, NYG11 9:58 NYG committed 9 yard penalty 1st-2, NYG2 9:52 B. Jackson rushed up the middle for no gain 2nd-2, NYG2 9:07 B. Favre passed to B. Franks down the middle for 2 yard touchdown. M. Crosby made PAT The Packers only had 1 3rd down in that drive, but there were 5 2nd downs, and 4 of them were of 9 yards or more. And, the Packers weren't winning at this point, so your entire comment has no point. Also, there a difference in running your best plays and and a team getting 1 yard gains on first downs (5 consecutive times) on the road in a game when you are losing. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 09/21/2007 4:13:05 pm | ||
 | Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/21/2007 @ 04:27:34 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The Seahawks suck. 'Nuff said. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 09/21/2007 @ 05:16:19 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 03:59:30 PM Alex Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 01:11:11 PM The drive I was talking about was in the 2nd half. In fact, it was the first drive of the 2nd half. Green Bay - 14:52 1st-10, GB49 14:52 B. Jackson rushed to the left for 1 yard gain 2nd-9, 50 14:15 B. Favre passed to K. Hall down the middle for 10 yard gain 1st-10, NYG40 13:46 B. Jackson rushed to the left for 1 yard gain 2nd-9, NYG39 13:14 B. Favre passed to K. Hall to the left for 10 yard gain 1st-10, NYG29 12:32 D. Wynn rushed to the left for 1 yard loss 2nd-11, NYG30 11:44 B. Favre passed to J. Jones to the right for 5 yard gain 3rd-6, NYG25 11:01 B. Favre passed to J. Jones to the right for 17 yard gain 1st-8, NYG8 10:37 B. Jackson rushed up the middle for 3 yard loss 2nd-11, NYG11 9:58 NYG committed 9 yard penalty 1st-2, NYG2 9:52 B. Jackson rushed up the middle for no gain 2nd-2, NYG2 9:07 B. Favre passed to B. Franks down the middle for 2 yard touchdown. M. Crosby made PAT The Packers only had 1 3rd down in that drive, but there were 5 2nd downs, and 4 of them were of 9 yards or more. And, the Packers weren't winning at this point, so your entire comment has no point. Also, there a difference in running your best plays and and a team getting 1 yard gains on first downs (5 consecutive times) on the road in a game when you are losing.You don't necessarily want to use all your best plays and show your hand in the 2nd half of the 2nd game when you're winning. I don't actually know if this drive you're referencing was in the 2nd half, but I think you get my point. 2 of the passes were to a RB so that's basically a run. Plus they scored on the drive and won the game, so I don't care. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 09/21/2007 @ 06:33:43 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, Scott's original point which was, essentially, that you won't win long term if you can't run the ball, and the packers haven't been is still valid, whether or not that drive/game worked out. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 2 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/21/2007 @ 08:42:16 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Word |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | PackOne - If you got a problem ... yo i'll solve it. 09/21/2007 @ 10:00:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 02:59:36 AM Not that I'm starting a weekly tribute to Jeremy (although wouldn't that be great?), but I really like the new logos in the picks. Nice work there. Yes, fairly sweet. Jeremy Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 06:33:43 PM Well, Scott's original point which was, essentially, that you won't win long term if you can't run the ball, and the packers haven't been is still valid, whether or not that drive/game worked out. An argument can be made for both sides of your statement. You won't win long term if you can't run the ball, but, you won't win if you can't stop the run either. So, if you can't run you better be able to stop the other guys from running as well. If the Packers continue to do the latter, they have a good a shot as anyone. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/22/2007 @ 07:01:29 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Is PackOne coming to the defense of Alex? Wow. What a moment in recent NutCan lore. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/22/2007 @ 08:19:40 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| We still don't have our all time leading rusher back in the line up yet, so once Morency does come back, we'll be quite alright. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| PackOne - Sit down your rockin' the boat. 09/22/2007 @ 01:30:20 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - 09/22/2007 @ 07:01:29 AM Is PackOne coming to the defense of Alex? Wow. What a moment in recent NutCan lore. Packer fans know no boundaries. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 09/22/2007 @ 04:21:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
OMG WTF OMG!!!!! I totally picked the Patriots and the Bucs in your little thing and their opponents didn't magically fade to gray nor did they show up. I think you're after me after last week. Your asterisk just wasn't good enough. Seriously though, didn't you used to be able to go back in and change your picks before the games started. What if Jon Kitna gets another concussion in practice and isn't magically healed by forces beyond our control. There was a Lions site I was reading last week that said, "Where will you be when your kids ask you when the great O'Sullivan-Jackson rivalry began." I thought that was good. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 09/23/2007 @ 01:39:06 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 09:00:39 AM Jon Wrote - 09/21/2007 @ 02:59:36 AM You mean in the picks up above or the new fading picks page thing? Edit: Also, welcome back Jumbo 12.Not that I'm starting a weekly tribute to Jeremy (although wouldn't that be great?), but I really like the new logos in the picks. Nice work there. The one up above. Although I like the fade thing too. I haven't seen that good a fade since (insert 90's male r&b artist's name here)'s haircut. I'd also like to welcome back Jumbo12. And, Micah, I don't know what happened with your picks. And I'm pretty sure I can't help with it. But I'm commenting on your complaint because nothing has changed on it, it seems. I know there's a time difference, so it must be that the games have already started a whole day earlier for those on the east coast. Which you wouldn't think would be possible, but I won't rule it out. I mean, especially since it's the equinox and all that. Anyway, Jeremy always rigs the picks thing so that he wins, but I'll be a witness to say that you picked the patriots and tampa bay on time this week. Unless you win more games than I do. Then I'll deny it ever happened. OK, not really. Because then Carl would no longer think I'm trustworthy. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jon screwed with this at 09/23/2007 1:43:11 am | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/23/2007 @ 03:37:10 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Packers are 3-0!!! Vikings are 1-2!!! Favre tied Marino's TD record!!! All is well!!! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 09/23/2007 @ 04:32:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Indeed! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/23/2007 @ 05:14:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The Vikings got jobbed out of a touchdown and had to settle for a field goal. Luckily the 4 points wouldn't have mattered in the end. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 09/23/2007 5:14:16 pm | ||
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/23/2007 @ 05:17:50 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| 3-0 is pretty sweet. I'm impressed. Wow. I thought at this point we'd be 1-2, but I must've forgotten that we had the most Favreist quarterback of them all. Yeehaw! |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 09/23/2007 @ 06:09:08 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I thought that touchdown catch by the Vikings was ok. Maybe the ref saw something that everyone else didn't. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jon - many posts 09/23/2007 @ 10:03:07 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/23/2007 @ 05:14:00 PM The Vikings got jobbed out of a touchdown and had to settle for a field goal. Luckily the 4 points wouldn't have mattered in the end. Yeah I'm not huge on pointing to one call and concluding that there was a total injustice, but the Vikings got absolutely boned. It wasn't that the ref saw something everyone didn't, it's that he made a bad original call and needed a replay to show what everyone already knew. However, there were apparently two cameras in the stadium and they were 10 feet apart on the same side of the stadium. So while you could easily see that he didn't drop the ball, there was one fraction of a second where his body obstructs the camera's view where he could have theoretically spiked the ball and repositioned it exactly as it had been prior to the obstruction. That's what I saw, at least. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - So's your face 09/24/2007 @ 07:50:34 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
Jeremy pointed this out to me - but I can't believe Scott picked the Chargers. I've only gone against the Packers like twice and that was because they were on like 6 game losing streaks, not 6 game winning streaks. The point is, you always go with your team. Et tu Brutus? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 09/24/2007 @ 12:17:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I still cheered for them, but I honestly didn't think they were going to win. I'm an honest pick-maker. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/24/2007 @ 06:20:35 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - 09/23/2007 @ 10:03:07 PM Jeremy Wrote - 09/23/2007 @ 05:14:00 PM The Vikings got jobbed out of a touchdown and had to settle for a field goal. Luckily the 4 points wouldn't have mattered in the end. Yeah I'm not huge on pointing to one call and concluding that there was a total injustice, but the Vikings got absolutely boned. It wasn't that the ref saw something everyone didn't, it's that he made a bad original call and needed a replay to show what everyone already knew. However, there were apparently two cameras in the stadium and they were 10 feet apart on the same side of the stadium. So while you could easily see that he didn't drop the ball, there was one fraction of a second where his body obstructs the camera's view where he could have theoretically spiked the ball and repositioned it exactly as it had been prior to the obstruction. That's what I saw, at least. And I may be wrong on this front, but I think that the ref 2 feet away, with the perfect angle, did call it a TD, and some dude from down field came running in saying it hit the ground. The whole point of the replay system is to right wrongs. If they can't even get it right after replays the system needs revamping. First and foremost they need to screw what was called on the field and just go with what was likely from the replays. Sure the ball was obstructed for half a second, but the ball didn't spin/move from "side 1" to "side 2," and he didn't bobble the ball at all at any point along the way, so it's likely he caught it. Likewise if he establishes control, as he did, the ball CAN touch the ground and still be complete. So by sticking with the call on the field you are saying in that half second he managed to completely drop, re-catch, and position the ball exactly as it was. Doing all of it in the split second he knew his back was to the 1 camcorder fox brought to the game. On top of all that he did it all one handed. "Conclusive" or not it's more likely than not it was just a clean catch. I've complained before on here, but I think it's more or less spread out, maybe I just need to write a conclusive hard-hitting blog on what the NFL needs to do to fix the system. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 09/24/2007 6:21:29 pm | ||
|
| Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 09/25/2007 @ 05:05:20 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Nice week Alex. Also, it hit me today that the Vikings are essentially one horrendous call away from being 2-1 and that one loss was inches away from being a win. So an upright and a bad call are the difference between 3-0 and 1-2. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a case that all this is terribly earth-shattering. It's sort of what the game is about. And I'm not whining and proclaiming the Vikings to be a great team. I just think it's interesting how you can really point to two specific events that would put the season in a completely different perspective after week 3. Anyway, the field goal is a miss, whether it's close or not, so I have no problem with that loss. But I have a hard time conceding the Kansas City game. That was an all-time bad call as far as I can tell. And in the instant replay era no less. To translate it into Packer terms, imagine if they had replay during that Jerry Rice fumble and even though they used it, they still made the same call. Aside from the playoff aspect of the game, that's basically what this was. If I cared about football I might be frustrated about this. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
 | Sarah - So's your face 09/25/2007 @ 07:45:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| They would've never called that the same, because you could see it from the blimp and maybe even the moon that Rice fumbled the ball. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 09/25/2007 @ 08:47:11 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I think that's Jon's point. I also came to the same realization last night that the Vikings are 2 inches to the left on a field goal and a bad call away from 3-0. I planned on posting that this morning, but great minds think alike I guess. (Of course Kelly Holcomb could have just not overthrown a wide open Robert "Superstar" Ferguson in the end zone.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this at 09/25/2007 8:50:21 am | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 09:30:11 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
Hey, good teams teams find ways to be 3-0 when they very well could have been 1-2. But don't worry, the Packers won't give the Vikings or their fans any reasons to think that this week's game could have been a Viking win.  |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 2 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 09:54:19 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The point is that there isn't always a huge gulf between the haves and the have nots in the NFL. Even the Packers are one of two muffed punts away from being 2-1. Saying "good teams find a way to win" is a stupid cliched comment born of 5 channels having 2 hours of pregame to fill, sometimes stuff goes your way and sometimes it doesn't. The Vikings were "good enough" to score a touchdown, it was just taken off the board by a ref who likely couldn't tell a black guys elbow from the point of the football. The Vikings were "good enough" to have the Lions game come down to a field goal off the uprights despite being outplayed a good portion of the game. Now, none of this is to say the Vikings SHOULD be 3-0 or that they are the only team this applies to. In fact it's sort of the whole point that in the end there will be couple 10-6+ teams that was a few lucky rolls away from being 6-10 and some 6-10 teams who were a small handful of bad calls, inopportune fumbles, and narrowly missed field goals away from 10-6. That's just the life in the NFL. Obviously wins are the only thing that matter in the end, let's just not pretend that a team with a few more wins is inherently, without question, superior to the other team. (Or for that matter that beating a team means you're a better team.) Especially three weeks into the season. The Packers are a better team than the Vikings, because despite their week one luck the Packers have lit up two decent teams in a row. Meanwhile the Vikings' offense couldn't find their asses with both hands, a flashlight, and a Biology text book. That being said, however, there are probably 8 teams with a worse record who are "better" than the Packers, and the Chargers are probably on that list. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 09/25/2007 10:12:08 am | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 12:29:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Like 2 years ago when the Packers lost like 8 games by 3 points or less and finished the season 4-12. Either way, I'm a believer of the statement, "good teams find ways to win", because usually it's true. Bad stuff happens to teams all the time, (some teams get worse luck, and sometimes the ball just doesn't bounce your way). But the good teams find ways to get by that. Bad luck happens all the time, not just to the Vikings. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 09/25/2007 @ 01:24:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Football is a game of inches. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 09/25/2007 @ 05:46:13 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, that wasn't my point. Because they had instant replay in your game and still didn't give you the catch. They didn't have a good enough angle. Meanwhile, in the infamous Rice fumble, it could be seen from all around, and if we would've had instant replay, they would've taken 1/2 a second to give us the damn ball. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 07:57:17 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Which is why it would be preposterous for them to let the 49ers keep the ball. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 08:00:04 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I must agree with Sarah that the Rice fumble was a bit more obvious than the catch in the Vikings game, and with a bit more on the line. Just for my own sake, I'm going to argue my point about winners finding ways to win no matter what. 2 years ago, the Packers finished 4-12 despite having about 7 or 8 games decided by less than 7 points. So basically, the Packers were maybe 1 play in each game from being 12-4 instead of 4-12. But, the Packers were not a good team, and they would have been the luckiest team ever to finish 12-4. Now, Packer teams of the past that were indeed better could have turned those games into wins. Basically, what it comes down to is, you are only as good as you are. 3 weeks into the season is obviously way to early to determine anything about how good or bad a team really is, but I'm a believer that a team earned whatever record they finished with. No team wins the Super Bowl without getting a little good luck here and there, but no team wins the Super Bowl without having to overcome a little adversity here and there either. The same goes for a team that finishes 4-12. Football might be a bit different than baseball or basketball because of the number of games played, but I think the conclusions in the end are the same. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/25/2007 @ 08:10:41 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| After re-reading Jeremy's comment from 10:54, I actually don't disagree with it that much, or even at all. But there is just something about the way it's written that makes it seem like football is a game of chance. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 09/25/2007 @ 11:19:32 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| That's not what I meant per se, but I do think a lot more of the sports world is chance than the general "sports fan" is willing to concede. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/26/2007 @ 12:19:13 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
In that argument, though, you are simplifying an entire game down to one play. So the Vikings lost on a missed field goal. So the Packers won because of a botched punt return. Luck is simply opportunity meeting preparation anyway, especially in sports. A team that wins because of a botched field goal by their opponent still did everything else right during the game to put themselves into a position to win the game. I could point to the packers 2 years ago and say that in each of their losses that were close, it came down to just one play. But really, why is it that play. There are any number of plays in every game that probably could have gone another way and the outcome would have been completely different. And if all of those plays go your way, your team will probably win. In the Patriots 3 Super Bowl wins, one could say that it simply came down to the field goals at the end of each game that was what won it for the Patriots. While the field goals came at the end and thus have the most "recent" effect on the score, the rest of the game is what put the Pats in position to win with that field goal. This would be like pointing to a single game and saying that it was the loss responsible for your team missing the playoffs. The last win of the season is just as meaningful as the first win of the season and the same goes for losses. There is no such thing as "backing into the playoffs" because you have to play everyone on your schedule at some point. And just because your rival lost in week 17 which allowed your team to make the playoffs doesn't make your playoff berth any less legit. Had that loss occured in week 7 instead of week 17 nobody would say anything about it. I'm getting off topic, but these issues seem related. Basically, pointing to one play and saying "that is the one play that cost us the win," is oversimplifying things. Because you could say that, but I could probably find another play and say "well, if that play hadn't gone your way, the other play wouldn't have even happened." |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 01:01:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Since my "Shared Links" don't get read, read this letter to Bret Favre from the Star Tribune sports guy: http://www.startribune.com/souhan/story/1445929.html |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/26/2007 @ 01:02:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Who's Bret Favre? While I agree with your basic post Scott there is a difference between the "Highly hypothetical" well if we would have just scored two more touchdowns, we would have won, and the somewhat more tangible "We were one upright away from winning." I agree about the backing into the playoffs thing, but that's irrelevant to this argument. Points at the end of the game aren't more important than early points, but they better serve debates such as this because there's less chance for "butterflying." A kicker missing a field goal 2 minutes into the game and a kicker missing a last second field goal are different because the game would have/could have played out entirely differently depending on that early field goal. There aren't many variations a game can take with a field goal on it's way with a team down 2 with one second left. There's win, and there's lose. In fact, there are probably scenarios where making the early field goal causes you to lose the game. (You force the other team's hand later in the game on going for a td, rather than settling for a field goal, and now your chance to win comes down to needing hail mary's into the endzone rather than a field goal.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 09/26/2007 1:12:59 pm | ||
|
| Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 09/28/2007 @ 06:34:11 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - 09/26/2007 @ 12:19:13 PM Luck is simply opportunity meeting preparation anyway, especially in sports. No more quoting inspirational posters Scott. Especially when they're not true. Maybe if it said "SOME luck is really just opportunity meeting preparation..." But some "luck" is really just someone else screwing up and has nothing to do with you. I don't disagree with most of what you said, but I think Jeremy and I kind of accounted for a lot of it in our comments about the Vikings. They obviously put themselves in a situation where they could easily lose. The thing is, they also put themselves in a situation where they could easily win. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 09/28/2007 @ 07:23:29 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| That quote about luck is actually something my hockey coach once told me. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 09/28/2007 @ 08:30:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Agreed, case in point: Scott Wrote - 09/25/2007 @ 08:00:04 PM I must agree with Sarah that the Rice fumble was a bit more obvious than the catch in the Vikings game, and with a bit more on the line. Jon specifically addressed that the two games didn't share the same magnitude. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 11:21:07 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| true, I just thought it was worth addressing again. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - 4671 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 05:30:48 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - 09/28/2007 @ 08:30:46 AM Agreed, case in point: Scott Wrote - 09/25/2007 @ 08:00:04 PM I must agree with Sarah that the Rice fumble was a bit more obvious than the catch in the Vikings game, and with a bit more on the line. Jon specifically addressed that the two games didn't share the same magnitude. Any game involving the Packers has a much greater magnitude than any game with the Vikings. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/28/2007 @ 05:43:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'm not sure that's even possible, what with them playing 2 times a year.......nailed ya! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
Leave a Comment of your very own
| Name: | |||
| Comment: | |||
| |||
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.
Fetching Nutcan Content....
Vikings 10 @ Chiefs 13
Jeremy
I think it might be time for the Kelly Holcomb era to begin. The Vikings need a win here.Sarah
Battle of the bad. I think I see KC's first win of the season. Of course whenever I actually pick the Vikings they seem to lose. Oh well, I'll stick with my pick.Matt
It's a good thing that the Chiefs suck more than the Vikings at this point.Jon
Jackson threw 4 ints last week. Minnesota lost. It was tough to lose a close game like that, but I actually didn't feel that bad about it. We can all complain about Jackson being young and not great and how our offense can't do much, but I guess I'm over that already. I did my complaining in the offseason. We are what we thought we'd be, to paraphrase Dennis Green. In fact, through two games, we might actually be better than I thought we'd be. I know it's only two games, but our defense looks better than it's been in a while. The only real complaint can be that they lacked some pass rush at times last game. But they did alright keeping Detroit out of the end zone. And our running game is actually better than I thought it'd be. Again, I understand it's early. Anyway, it looks like our defense can at least keep us close in most games and I think this game is a good opportunity for that and more.