NFL 2008 Season Week 1 Picks

man i've been waiting for this for along time, now

<<< Holding Down The Best Overall Record!!!!! :)

Here's something interesting. Going into this year, I have the exact same lifetime winning percentage as Jeremy.

Favre looked pretty good, at least in the first half. I don't exactly see the Jets going anywhere this season though.

Favre looked pretty good, at least in the first half. I don't exactly see the Jets going anywhere this season though.

Now that Tom Brady is done for the year, that division is wide open. The Bills and Jets may have to fight it out, the Jets should make the playoffs at least in a now wide open AFC. Amazing how one injury can alter an entire season. If I were the Pats I would be calling Culpepper.

Yeah. Even in this weekend of upsets, and week one in general, this one is hard to call. I wouldn't be surprised by a 24 point win in either direction, or another boring, sloppy, 3 million error, 9-6 ballgame. I'm going to be awfully pissed if the Packers luck into another QB. Out of karmic fairness, and especially after how they handled the situation, they deserve to be a team that flounders at the quarterback position for the better part of a decade before they find someone semi adequate, like every other team. They're still the Packers though, so Rodgers will be the MVP and Jared Allen and Adrian Peterson will get hurt on their first plays.

Well, there are exceptions of course, but the overwhelming majority of the time the team goes in the toilet. Most quarterbacks don't pan out, period.

True, but they haven't even ran a practice yet and people are already writing them off. I mean, Brady is good, but the Patriots are good too. They have a team that isn't weak at very many positions. I don't think Brady means as much to his teams success as other QBs might, just because the talent around him is so good.

Coaches have to stop going for 2 before it's absolutely necessary.

Hey Bigby- LAY DOWN.


VICTORY!!!!

Yeah. Even in this weekend of upsets, and week one in general, this one is hard to call. I wouldn't be surprised by a 24 point win in either direction, or another boring, sloppy, 3 million error, 9-6 ballgame.

I'm going to be awfully pissed if the Packers luck into another QB. Out of karmic fairness, and especially after how they handled the situation, they deserve to be a team that flounders at the quarterback position for the better part of a decade before they find someone semi adequate, like every other team.

They're still the Packers though, so Rodgers will be the MVP and Jared Allen and Adrian Peterson will get hurt on their first plays.

I'm almost positive I'll be accused of sour grapes and homerism, but I feel like the Vikings got boned pretty badly on two plays. Don't misunderstand though, the Vikings played pretty crappily and there are a lot of reasons they didn't win. I don't think the refs took the Vikings from a sure win to a loss necessarily, and I'm not claiming any conspiracy or anything like that. But I can't help but be frustrated with two big calls I think they blew. That one they challenged should have been a catch, down by contact, with the ball popping out after he hit the ground. As I remember it, he caught the ball, had both feet down, turned and lowered his shoulder to take the hit. Took the hit, hit the ground and the ball came loose. What more did he need to do? He did everything but put it in a shoebox. And don't make a "football move" reference, because that's not the actual rule. (and I would say he made one by bracing himself for a hit anyway) The ball didn't come out before he hit the ground, or even "start to come out," whatever that means. I'm tired of the NFL refs and their ill-conceived and inconsistent notions of what a catch is. You shouldn't even bother to challenge the plays because they always go and look for 5 minutes just to come to the conclusion that, "well, he had two hands on the ball, two feet down, but it came out later, so he must have never really had control." And yeah this one happened to my favorite team, but I've felt this way about the referees on these plays for a couple years now. So, instead of being around midfield with the ball, Minnesota ends up punting a few plays later from their own 27 and it's returned for a touchdown. (edit: They also would have had their timeout to use at another time rather than have it taken away for an "incorrect" challenge) The other one was probably even more egregious. fourth quarter on third down. The drive before their final touchdown. 3rd and 1, on our own 27 and Bobby Wade got tackled before the ball even got there. But no pass interference was called. Should have been first down, spot of the foul. No call, and we had to punt. Either one of those calls could have completely changed the rest of the game. Look, bad calls happen all the time, and I was obviously watching from a Viking fan perspective. Maybe you think the refs blew a call against the Packers. Fine. Maybe so. That still doesn't mean that they didn't blow these calls (I defy you to tell me that wasn't pass interference at least).

In another post I think I gave Sarah crap for saying something about how now that Football season is here, that baseball would come in a far second. After week one I find that I have lost my patience with baseball, and barring the Twins/Brewers, I will probably not give a damn about it anymore.

I was wrong Sarah, and I apologize.

On that 70 yard TD pass that was called back, the O-lineman that was flagged for being downfield was at the first down yellow line when the ball was thrown. Because it was a 2nd and 4 play, that means that the o-lineman was only 4 yards downfield, not 5. I agree though that the reffing was not up to par at times.

off topic.. eff the Lions. I hate them

I was actually reading an article a week ago about football rules and I don't think the NFL rulebook is really publicly available...

Yeah, when I went to look at the rules, I noticed that this link http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules takes you to a "digest" of the rules. Basically a more friendly, but less precise and less technical version of the rules that they give out to media and fans. Which is fine in a sense, but since you know there could be more to any given rule, the digest is ultimately kind of worthless. With a bit more searching, I found what seemed to be the full version of the 2006 rule book in pdf form. But that was the best I could do in the short time I allotted for a search. I can't necessarily be sure of its authenticity though because anyone could have created it if they took enough time and energy. blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/media/2006 NFL RULEBOOK.pdf OK, I'll excerpt it here, in bold, even if it might be fake. Player Possession Article 7 A player is in possession when he is in firm grip and control of the ball inbounds (See 3-2-3). To gain possession of a loose ball (3-2-3) that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet completely on the ground inbounds or any other part of his body, other than his hands, on the ground inbounds. If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any other part of his body to the ground or if there is any doubt that the acts were simultaneous, there is no possession. This rule applies in the field of play and in the end zone. Catch A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight (See 3-20; 8-1-7-S.N. 5). Note: It is a catch if in the process of attempting to catch the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to the ball touching the ground and that control is maintained after the ball has touched the ground. The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing). That comes from page 6 of the book, more importatly page 14 of the pdf file. It's obviously pretty technical, but here's my take. I'm guessing the "football move" thing might have come about regarding the "simultaneous" act of losing the ball and having two feet down in play. Basically meaning, it's not enough to just have the ball secured at the instant you are in play with two feet down (or one knee, etc.), you have to maintain the possession after that very instant. I'm not sure the "football move" thing was ever actually codified or if it was just a way to explain that if control of the ball is lost at the exact time you first have the two feet down in play, then it doesn't count. Or, basically, if the two parts of the catch (1.securing the ball and 2. touching in bounds) both happen but part 2 coincides with the player then losing the ball, it doesn't count. In the Vikings play, he had two feet down and had the ball. He was then hit, still had the ball, and then hit the ground and lost the ball. But since that hitting of the ground wasn't when he established himself on the field of play (he had done that already after catching the ball and having foot one and two planted on the ground), I don't see why it wasn't a catch. At least in 2006.

The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass.

I don't think I was ever in the Rodgers hating camp and I feel I've already made any required amends by drafting him on my fantasy team.

So if I catch it, run around for a while, get tackled and in the process of my elbow hitting the ball comes out that's an incomplete pass? Either you're down the nano second a blade of grass grazes your elbow or not.

Yes, stupid letter writer...