NFL 2007 Season Week 6 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
Browns
Bears
Packers
Jets
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Bengals
Panthers
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Packers
Jets
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Bengals
Panthers
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 9 - 4 0.692 |
Season: | 52 - 37 0.584 |
Lifetime: | 221 - 135 0.621 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Season: | 59 - 30 0.663 |
Lifetime: | 209 - 146 0.589 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Jets
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Chiefs
Panthers
Chargers
Cowboys
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Packers
Jets
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Chiefs
Panthers
Chargers
Cowboys
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 9 - 4 0.692 |
Season: | 53 - 36 0.596 |
Lifetime: | 210 - 143 0.595 |
Browns
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 7 - 6 0.538 |
Season: | 20 - 23 0.465 |
Lifetime: | 84 - 67 0.556 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Texans
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Texans
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Season: | 55 - 34 0.618 |
Lifetime: | 55 - 34 0.618 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Rams
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Rams
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Week: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Season: | 54 - 35 0.607 |
Lifetime: | 54 - 35 0.607 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Raiders
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Raiders
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Season: | 48 - 28 0.632 |
Lifetime: | 48 - 28 0.632 |
Browns
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Rams
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Rams
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 6 - 7 0.462 |
Season: | 17 - 10 0.630 |
Lifetime: | 17 - 10 0.630 |
Browns
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Texans
Chiefs
Cardinals
Chargers
Cowboys
Seahawks
Giants
Bears
Commanders
Eagles
Ravens
Buccaneers
Texans
Chiefs
Cardinals
Chargers
Cowboys
Seahawks
Giants
Week: | 7 - 6 0.538 |
Season: | 19 - 8 0.704 |
Lifetime: | 19 - 8 0.704 |
Browns
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Bears
Packers
Eagles
Ravens
Titans
Jaguars
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Week: | 9 - 4 0.692 |
Season: | 9 - 4 0.692 |
Lifetime: | 9 - 4 0.692 |
Browns
Vikings
Packers
Jets
Rams
Buccaneers
Texans
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Vikings
Packers
Jets
Rams
Buccaneers
Texans
Bengals
Cardinals
Chargers
Patriots
Saints
Giants
Week: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Season: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Lifetime: | 8 - 5 0.615 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
Commanders 14 @ Packers 17 |
JeremyThe Redskins looked pretty good against the Lions last week. Look for the Pack to drop two in a row at home. | |
MattI miss the Steve Spurrier Era. | |
SarahI watched part of the Redskins game last week. They didn't look that impressive, but they got it done. I hope the Packers can rebound after the dreadful performance from last week. What lack of a rushing game was everyone worried about? | |
JonSmothering defense. |
Saints 28 @ Seahawks 17 |
JeremyLooking to try and recapture the magic of last season the Saints have announced they will be playing the rest of the season in 2006 throwback uniforms. | |
MattI think this is the Saints' week, but I could be wrong. | |
SarahSux to the sux | |
JonI just don't think New Orleans will go 0-5. |
Giants 31 @ Falcons 10 |
JeremyHow badly to you think the NFL wants to swap this game out for the Pats @ Cowboys game? | |
MattI thought that I should point out that both of these teams have beaten the Vikings in NFC Championship games. | |
SarahVick sure is in a lot of trouble. How come the Cowboys vs Patriots game isn't the national one this week? I mean do we really need another Giants national game? Not that we need another Cowboys/Patriots national game, but still. I'd like to see the Patriots get their asses kicked. And I hate the Cowboys. | |
JonI wouldn't be surprised if the Falcons won, but why would I pick them? I'm just glad I can see the Giants on tv again. |
RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 10/09/2007 @ 10:21:37 PM |
||
---|---|---|
upset pick of my week 6 rams over ravens!!!! Rest up Detroit, you need it :( ! |
RUFiO1984 - Two raw eggs in the morning 10/09/2007 @ 10:23:28 PM |
||
---|---|---|
even better upset cowboys over pats!!! but not going to happen :) |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/10/2007 @ 06:16:40 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Happy Birthday Brett! |
tbrown81 10/10/2007 @ 08:47:48 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Raiders will upset the chargers!!! |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/12/2007 @ 11:26:28 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Would that really be that big of an upset at this point? |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 12:52:17 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Is Micah not picking anymore? |
Alex - 3619 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 02:11:12 PM |
||
---|---|---|
The last 2 weeks holding has been called on like ever other offensive play for the Packers. |
Sarah - So's your face 10/14/2007 @ 02:43:15 PM |
||
---|---|---|
On the veterans no less |
Sarah - So's your face 10/14/2007 @ 02:43:35 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Portis just fumbled 1st and goal for the pack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 02:45:17 PM |
||
---|---|---|
WTF?????????? THat was a push out!!!!!! |
Sarah - So's your face 10/14/2007 @ 02:49:15 PM |
||
---|---|---|
unbelievable |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 03:43:34 PM |
||
---|---|---|
You can't drop back to pass 60 times a game and not expect holding penalties. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 04:14:42 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Flawless logic. I'll expect holding calls when I see holding calls. When there is no holding (as was the case on that bogus call that took away touchdown), I expect there to be no holding call. The Packers won, so I 'm not that upset (although the refs cost me 12+ fantasy points for taking 2 touchdowns away from the packers). Anyway, the "smothering defense" by the Redskins should have given up close to 31 points. I'm feeling pretty good about how this season is going. Especially because the Packers won a game where there played kinda crappy against a pretty good team. Crazy finish to the Vikings-Bears game. Devin Hester should be considered for MVP, because he definitely changes the way teams approach the kicking game. Edit: (I was quoting Jon's "smothering defense" comment, and to be fair, he never specified which team he was talking about.) |
||
Scott messed with this at 10/14/2007 4:15:47 pm |
Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/14/2007 @ 04:16:45 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Fair enough, but they called at least 1 real iffy one today. As much as holding supposedly occurs (whether it's called or not) I think it should only be a 5 yard penalty. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 04:25:11 PM |
||
---|---|---|
That holding call that took away the 30 yard touchdown qualifies as a joke of a call, just for the record. | ||
Scott edited this at 10/14/2007 4:25:41 pm |
Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 10/14/2007 @ 04:31:55 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Scott Wrote - 10/14/2007 @ 04:14:42 PM Flawless logic. I'll expect holding calls when I see holding calls. When there is no holding (as was the case on that bogus call that took away touchdown), I expect there to be no holding call. The Packers won, so I 'm not that upset (although the refs cost me 12+ fantasy points for taking 2 touchdowns away from the packers). Anyway, the "smothering defense" by the Redskins should have given up close to 31 points. I'm feeling pretty good about how this season is going. Especially because the Packers won a game where there played kinda crappy against a pretty good team. Crazy finish to the Vikings-Bears game. Devin Hester should be considered for MVP, because he definitely changes the way teams approach the kicking game. Edit: (I was quoting Jon's "smothering defense" comment, and to be fair, he never specified which team he was talking about.) There's holding on virtually every play, so yes expect them to come when you throw enough times. The Packers passed 50 times on the Vikings with 0 holding calls, so I'm not sure what you're all complaining about with the last few games. The holding penalties will come. 50+ passes a game + Favre getting sacked so few times == a pretty good chance there's holding once in a while. Also, keep in mind that sometimes the ref calls a number, they show that player doing nothing wrong in the replay, and all it was was that the ref said the wrong number. They say the wrong number like 10% of the time. They also called back a few huge plays by the Redskins. One for sure I saw was on a play where the wideout was being mugged and held, the Redskin receiver simply used his arms to get a holding/already-falling Packer off of him, and caught a pass for a decent amount of yards. They called penalties on them both and the offsetting penalties was essentially a 20 yard penalty on the Redskins. You guys won a game you had absolutely no business winning. They were kicking your asses all day and if it wasn't for a couple instances of "opportunity meeting preparation" down the stretch you would have lost. Quit your bitching and enjoy the win. |
||
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 10/14/2007 4:39:07 pm |
Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 10/14/2007 @ 08:25:26 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I had a really good rebuke to that comment, but my browser crashed and I lost everything. Basically it boiled down to the mem wanting to point out that the Packers get their fair share of bogus or lame calls despite some people (who may or may not be members of this site) thinking that the Packers are always the beneficiary of some NFL consipiracy. And I really could care less because the Packers did win and are running away with the NFC North. edit: And I saw the same pass interference call that Jeremy described and it wasn't the onesided call has he described it. When a wide receiver fights off a db and the db ends up on the ground, my gut feeling is that maybe that WR did something merriting a flag. But for the Packers it's a gift call. |
||
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 10/18/2007 8:39:50 am |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 08:28:00 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Also, is someone going through and giving the 0 nut to every comment? The last 10 comments all were recently given the 0 nut rating. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/14/2007 @ 08:43:47 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I thought of something else about my rant about the officials. This is why it is rediculous to say things like "well, my team is really 2 plays away from being 5-0 instead of 3-2". Case in point, I argue that the Packers were 2 calls away from todays game being a Packers victory 31-14 rather than 17-14, and a Redskins fan (or Vikings fan I guess) finds one play that went against them and argues the same thing in their favor. No one play ever determines the outcome of a game, so the idea that one lucky bounce is the difference between winning and losing is rediculous, because the other team could say the same thing about a completely different play (or set of plays). |
RUFiO1984 - Go Lions!!! 10/15/2007 @ 01:22:00 PM |
||
---|---|---|
good point :) |
Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 10/15/2007 @ 02:22:50 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Scott Wrote - 10/14/2007 @ 08:43:47 PM I thought of something else about my rant about the officials. This is why it is rediculous to say things like "well, my team is really 2 plays away from being 5-0 instead of 3-2". Case in point, I argue that the Packers were 2 calls away from todays game being a Packers victory 31-14 rather than 17-14, and a Redskins fan (or Vikings fan I guess) finds one play that went against them and argues the same thing in their favor. No one play ever determines the outcome of a game, so the idea that one lucky bounce is the difference between winning and losing is rediculous, because the other team could say the same thing about a completely different play (or set of plays). Well, it's safe to say no football game has been the opening kickoff and no other plays were run. You could argue that everything in the world is the cumulative cause and effect of everything that put you into that moment. I do however think it's a gross over complication in the sports world, because the sports world has some finite borders. Obviously there were many many things that come down to a team setting up a field goal attempt down 2 with 1 second left. It would still be fair if someone discussed the outcome of that field goal as winning or losing them the game. If you would have made that field goal you would have won, so not making it lost. Also to argue this point you would have to argue, to a degree, that every play is of equal weight. The 67 yard touchdown run is equal to the 2 yard loss that put the team in that exact spot the play before. You could argue that the 67 yard run may never have happened had they not been in that exact spot and circumstances thanks to the -2 yard run and every single play before it, but I think that's a pretty gross over complication. Especially when you factor in that many scoring plays are only stopped by the endzone and are in a way, if you insist on waxing philosophical, infinite. Charles Woodson would have taken that fumble in yesterday if the goal line was 5, 10, 50, 100, or 400 yards away. To argue that that play wasn't the turning point in that game, and was rather just one of 100 plays that day, all of equal value, the sum total of which totaled up to 17-14 Packers, to me is just silly. If you don't want to bust chops for the sake of it everyone generally knows what someone means when they say "that holding penalty cost us the game." They don't mean they ran one play all day, it went for a touchdown, the refs called it back, ceremoniously awarded the other team a point for their effort, and the game ended then and there 1-0. Also I think you have to put a cap on the number of things you can do that with. If you do indeed have to point to a set of plays then odds are you're just reaching. edit: Also, I dont mean to sound like I'm piling on and dismissing this completely. Your point that in a lot of cases someone for team a saying "That penalty cost us a touchdown" could be met with a fan of team b saying "well the refs cost us 4 points on such and such when we had to settle for a field goal. I still think it's a little over-thinking to say "no one play ever determines the game." Plus not all "yeah-buts" are equal. The refs taking a touchdown off the board on a fishy holding call and someone countering with "well if receiver x could have held onto that TD it wouldn't have been an issue" is not equal because Team 1 did their part and got it taken away, Team 2 just has a list of "could haves." |
||
Jeremy perfected this 2 times, last at 10/15/2007 2:44:51 pm |
PackOne - The Harvard comma's #1 fan. 10/15/2007 @ 09:00:35 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Thats what you call a 67 candy corn post. |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/15/2007 @ 10:49:24 PM |
||
---|---|---|
67 Candy corns, but not enough to actually get a rating of any sort? |
RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 10/16/2007 @ 07:00:06 AM |
||
---|---|---|
yes but thats a lot of candy corn! |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/16/2007 @ 07:23:39 AM |
||
---|---|---|
I think that was actually the play the Packers ran when Favre threw his record breaking touchdown. |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/16/2007 @ 07:38:18 AM |
||
---|---|---|
http://www.nfl.com/probowl Vote Favre into the Pro Bowl! |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/16/2007 @ 08:32:09 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Scott Wrote - 10/16/2007 @ 07:23:39 AM I think that was actually the play the Packers ran when Favre threw his record breaking touchdown. It was going to be, but then he checked to the 88 pancake slant. |
||
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/16/2007 12:34:55 pm |
PackOne - 1528 Posts 10/17/2007 @ 06:00:48 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Week 7 anyone ? Bueller? |
Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 10/18/2007 @ 07:35:06 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Vindicated!!! My rant was legit!!! The Packers officially got screwed, league officials report. |
Sarah - 4671 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 07:44:39 AM |
||
---|---|---|
I called it as it was happening! (as i was talking to myself on this blog) They're lucky we won... |
Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 07:46:58 AM |
||
---|---|---|
GJ Scott, you win! |
Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 10/18/2007 @ 08:06:38 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Actually, I don't remember Scott making any comment on the Bubba Franks push out. |
Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/18/2007 @ 08:24:09 AM |
||
---|---|---|
it was one of the 2 touchdowns I said were called back. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 08:24:50 AM |
||
---|---|---|
do I still get the points in fantasy football? Favre's 6 points for the td pass and then the yards for the pass. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 08:41:45 AM |
||
---|---|---|
Scott Wrote - 10/14/2007 @ 08:25:26 PM I had a really good rebuke to that comment, but my browser crashed and I lost everything. Basically it boiled down to the mem wanting to point out that the Packers get their fair share of bogus or lame calls despite some people (who may or may not be members of this site) thinking that the Packers are always the beneficiary of some NFL consipiracy. And I really could care less because the Packers did win and are running away with the NFC North. edit: And I saw the same pass interference call that Jeremy described and it wasn't the onesided call has he described it. When a wide receiver fights off a db and the db ends up on the ground, my gut feeling is that maybe that WR did something merriting a flag. But for the Packers it's a gift call. In this comment, my rebuke taht I lost because of computer problems contained my complaint about the Franks catch. Either way, I still was more upset about the penalty than I was about the Franks catch, cuz I could see the Franks catch being called either way. Pushout calls are always questionable, no matter which way they call it. |
Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/18/2007 @ 08:59:50 AM |
||
---|---|---|
I think the fairest way to do the pushouts is just get rid of them altogether. Getting pushed out before you get your feet down should just be a risk of throwing near the sidelines. I feel as if the rule was originally implemented to cover "What happens if a linebacker catches a receiver 5 yards from the sideline and runs him out of bounds....we should make a rule that if they obviously would have come down it counts as a catch." Then since then we've gotten closer and closer to the sideline and more nitpicky. If a receiver gets one foot down and his other foot is millimeters off the ground when he's pushed out then fine. I don't think it was without question that Franks would have been in bounds and I certainly don't think it's without question that the player (Greg Olson?) would have come down in bounds the week before in the Packers/Bears game. The pushout rule being what is is they both should have been called, I just don't like the rule. There's a reason we marvel at the Marvin Harrisons, Randy Mosses, Cris Carters or the world. The "falling out of bounds, or sprinting out of the back of the endzone, yet managing to sneak your feet inbounds catch" is hard to master. Yet somehow if there's a defender in the area making contact we assume any and every receiver was just milliseconds away from making a catch that would land them on "Top Ten" countdowns across the land. |
Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 10/18/2007 @ 12:26:49 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Well it would help if the rule was changed to only need one foot in bounds, which it should be. |
Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 12:49:51 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I don't think it should and I don't see how that would solve this problem. |
Scott - 6225 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 01:41:20 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Jeremy Wrote - 10/18/2007 @ 08:59:50 AM There's a reason we marvel at the Marvin Harrisons, Randy Mosses, Cris Carters or the world. The "falling out of bounds, or sprinting out of the back of the endzone, yet managing to sneak your feet inbounds catch" is hard to master. Yet somehow if there's a defender in the area making contact we assume any and every receiver was just milliseconds away from making a catch that would land them on "Top Ten" countdowns across the land. But, lots of these sideline catches are just kind of routine catches near the sidelines where the receiver would have come down inbounds without an extradorinary effort. In Bubba's case, he was coming straight down, not barreling towards the sidelines. I see what you mean, but in a case where a player isn't making a spectacular catch at the sidelines but a routine catch near the sidelines, I don't mind this rule. |
Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 10/18/2007 @ 01:55:58 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Maybe pushouts in the endzone could be first and goal at the one. It seems to me it operates under the same "this would have been a catch had the defender not interceded" logic as pass interference, why is it treated differently? I can't remember the exact position/posture/trajectory of Bubba's body, but the play resulted in a simultaneous "No. No. Out of bounds." from Matt, Jon, and I as we anticipated the result of BFR Section 2 Subsection 4 "In the even there is no specific rule in the BFR handbook for a given play, and the result could go either way without defying all other explanation, err on the side of Favre." So take that for what it's worth. Obviously we had our purple glasses on, but you had your green glases on too. (Also for the record the BFR Handbook Section 2 Subsection 5 states "In regards to rule 2.4, it's ok if it defies all other explanation once in a while too.") |
||
Jeremy perfected this 4 times, last at 10/18/2007 1:58:19 pm |
Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 10/18/2007 @ 02:05:27 PM |
||
---|---|---|
I may have had my green glasses on at the time, but the official ruling states that my glasses were in fact crystal clear. Also, for the record, I don't think Favre has been giving a roughing the passer all year, and there is no doubt he is getting knocked down a lot more this year than in the past several years. Also also, you weren't watching the Vikings game? |
Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 10/18/2007 @ 02:29:38 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Well I was referring to the fact that you saw "routine catch" and "coming straight down" were we saw "out of bounds." The games were on side by side and since NFL games spend 95% of their air time on commercial we got to see a lot of the Packer game. The 'official ruling' is irrelevant in a discussion about how the rule is stupid. |
Alex - 3619 Posts 10/18/2007 @ 07:08:17 PM |
||
---|---|---|
Nothing? If the receiver only needs one foot in bounds doesn't it seem like it would easier to make a judgment call, since probably half of the time on pushouts the receiver does have one foot in? |
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.
Vikings 34 @ Bears 31
Jeremy
Look out Bears, the Vikings have had a full two weeks to make zero adjustments to the game plan in preparation for this one. Look for Adrian Peterson's slow faze out to continue. I predict a stat line of 3 rushes for 45 yards early in the first quarter and a benching to follow.Matt
Chester Taylor for MVP!!!!Sarah
I don't care for either of these teams. I'd rather have the Vikings win if it came down to it.Jon
Green Bay seemed to be able to run against Chicago easily at times. Of course, they also had to respect the passing game, but still I think Adrian Peterson can have some fun.