NFL 2008 Season Week 14 Picks

	jay6666 - 29 Posts 12/02/2008 @ 04:02:42 PM
Last time I'm picking the Packers!!!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 12/02/2008 @ 04:17:24 PM
The Vikings defensive line has just been suspended.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 12/02/2008 @ 05:13:48 PM
What a crock of shit. Could the NFL's system be anymore screwed up? Plaxico Burress faces 3.5 years minimum jail time and will likely finish out the season. Matt Jones was busted with cocaine. Players get in fights all the time, beat their wives all the time, and some have hurt and killed people. Hell Bryant McKinnie had to be arrested 234 times before it warranted a 4 game suspension. Now you're suspending a group of guys 4 games for taking a substance that contains trace amounts of a substance that could be used, in copious amounts only, to mask steroids, even though there is absolutely no actual allegation of steroid use? On top of all that, you're going to drag your feet on this and sandbag the players with a 4 game suspension with 4 games to go? The language is clear, these players broke the rules. The language, however, is stupid, the rule, moronic, and the NFL's priorities are so far out of whack it's sickening. The language is also a complete and utter "cover our asses" cop-out so the NFL can do things like withhold information that could help protect players health, or for that matter, outright lie to players, and still go "Well, it doesn't matter what we do, you need to read the fine print, sucker."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/02/2008 5:25:44 pm

	PackOne - Check yourself before you wriggity wreck yourself. 12/02/2008 @ 05:38:28 PM
Didn't the players appeal first?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - What the F@#$ am I being arrested fo? 12/02/2008 @ 07:32:21 PM
They appealed last week Tues or Wed in New York. DENIED		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4691 Posts 12/02/2008 @ 07:34:37 PM
"Angelo Wright, the agent for Pat Williams, said he planned to file a motion in federal court in the next 24 hours, presumably to put off his client's suspension. Tom Condon, the agent for Kevin Williams, said he hadn't yet determined what course of action to take." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122 It aint over 'til it's over.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day. 12/02/2008 @ 10:45:26 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 07:34:37 PM "Angelo Wright, the agent for Pat Williams, said he planned to file a motion in federal court in the next 24 hours, presumably to put off his client's suspension. Tom Condon, the agent for Kevin Williams, said he hadn't yet determined what course of action to take." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3740122 It aint over 'til it's over. From what I hear, it's over. Example: http://tinyurl.com/5cjjgw		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	jthompto 12/03/2008 @ 07:00:39 AM
Well the player from Atlanta, Grady Jackson, has had his suspsension delayed and another player who was already suspended is in the process of suing to regain his salary. So I don't think it's over just yet. I think the only reason the NFL is takign such a hard stance on this is because it went public so long ago. So we can all blame Jay Glazer and his sources deep inside the league for leaking the information. If it was confidential like these tests are supose to be, the NFL could have taken the time to make sure they made the right ruling.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 07:31:18 AM
How is the rest of the Vike season? How screwed are they if they're both out the rest of the year?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 08:43:23 AM
Realistically they just need to beat the lions and then win one game against the Falcons, Cardinals, or Giants (who might have nothing to play for) http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-6-257/Impact--Vikings-still-have-fair-shot-at-title.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 12:59:43 PM
Man, now I'm conflicted. I've been rooting hard for the Lions to pull off 0-16, but it would be huge for the Packers if the Lions could beat the Vikings. Given that Culpepper is going to tell the defensive coaches everything he knows about the Vikings offense, I'm switching my pick.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	zndstage - 2 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 01:04:56 PM
Who's keeping the stats on the Titans? I do believe they are no longer undefeated or amI missing something?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Tater Salad? 12/03/2008 @ 01:05:27 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 12:59:43 PM Man, now I'm conflicted. I've been rooting hard for the Lions to pull off 0-16, but it would be huge for the Packers if the Lions could beat the Vikings. Given that Culpepper is going to tell the defensive coaches everything he knows about the Vikings offense, I'm switching my pick. Hlarious!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 01:12:12 PM
Yeah, if the Vikings lose to the 0-12 Lions, again, it will have little, if nothing, to do with Daunte spilling the beans about a different system with different coaches. Hell, Daunte wasn't even teammates with half the starters, so he can't even spill the beans on "personal" things like "Adrian has severe OCD, sneeze on him and he'll immediately do down and leave the game for 10 minutes to go shower."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/03/2008 1:12:51 pm

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 01:16:16 PM
AP does that? What a wierdo!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 01:16:35 PM
zndstage Wrote - Today @ 01:04:56 PM Who's keeping the stats on the Titans? I do believe they are no longer undefeated or amI missing something? I'm not sure what's going on there. I'll look into it later.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 12/03/2008 @ 07:21:35 PM
A judge issued a temporary restraining order on the suspensions until he can hear further arguments in the case, so it looks like they may be able to play this Sunday (unless he hears the arguments and rules by then). http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3743006		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 12/03/2008 7:21:57 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 12/03/2008 @ 07:24:57 PM
Of course, this could backfire if the suspensions are delayed a week or two and then the players' argument is rejected. Then they may end up missing playoff games.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 12/03/2008 @ 08:11:16 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 07:24:57 PM Of course, this could backfire if the suspensions are delayed a week or two and then the players' argument is rejected. Then they may end up missing playoff games. I think they'll miss the playoffs regardless of their suspensions.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/03/2008 @ 10:48:23 PM
Obviously this is all speculation, but I've read these suspensions only apply to regular season games. I guess that would mean the Vikings would be without them for week one 2009 as well. Which means get ready for another week 1 Packer-Viking game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 12/03/2008 10:48:42 pm

	jthompto 12/04/2008 @ 06:57:41 AM
I am starting the feeling that there is no way to beat the big bad NFL on this one. They might as well take the suspensions and try to win 2 games without them. I haven't heard anything about playoff games not counting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 07:40:50 AM
I'm taking a sideline on this issue. I don't care too much about the outcome, but it's interesting to watch the drama unfold.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - "If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style." 12/04/2008 @ 08:12:41 AM
I need help with my college picks. I'm in the semifinals in my office pool, and 1, 2, 3 get paid while 4 gets nothing. NFL I have pretty well down, but can you help here? Pittsburgh at Connecticut- picked PITS E Carolina at Tulsa- picked Tulsa Navy at Army- ARMY!!! BC at VT- VT Bama at FLA- FLA USC UCLA- USC, but the intrawebs claim UCLA may upset! Missouri at Oklahoma- OK AZ State at AZ- AZ wildcats S. Florida at W VA- WVA CInci at Hawaii- Cinci then... this one sucks- FCS Div I AA PLayoffs: Weber State at Montana New Hampsh at N Iowa Richmond at Appalachian St Villanova at James Madison. Any help or commentary is BEGGED FOR especially in the FCS crap.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jay6666 - 29 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 08:46:39 AM
Cmon now if you really think the Lions will win...you really are a nutcan.. I can probably run 100 yrds on the Lions. AP will have 2 maybe 3 td's himself. The Viking's D will still punish Detriot!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 09:39:34 AM
Playoff Situationizer Edit: If you assign by Offense a scenario plays out where the Packers take the Division at 8-8 and host the 11-5 Falcons. Talk about a nightmare for the NFL. And if you swap the Packers/Bears game there's a scenario that has the Vikings taking it at 8-8. Edit again: Though neither is as bad as this: Raiders at 7-9!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/04/2008 9:44:37 am

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 09:59:15 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:39:34 AM Playoff Situationizer Edit: If you assign by Offense a scenario plays out where the Packers take the Division at 8-8 and host the 11-5 Falcons. Talk about a nightmare for the NFL. And if you swap the Packers/Bears game there's a scenario that has the Vikings taking it at 8-8. Edit again: Though neither is as bad as this: Raiders at 7-9! That just took too much of my work time. Good toy though		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 12/04/2008 @ 01:09:23 PM
jay6666 Wrote - Today @ 08:46:39 AM Cmon now if you really think the Lions will win...you really are a nutcan.. I can probably run 100 yrds on the Lions. AP will have 2 maybe 3 td's himself. The Viking's D will still punish Detriot! It was 12-10 last time, and Orlovsky won't be in there to spot them 2 points again.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 12/04/2008 @ 01:30:22 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:09:23 PM jay6666 Wrote - Today @ 08:46:39 AM Cmon now if you really think the Lions will win...you really are a nutcan.. I can probably run 100 yrds on the Lions. AP will have 2 maybe 3 td's himself. The Viking's D will still punish Detriot! It was 12-10 last time, and Orlovsky won't be in there to spot them 2 points again. They doubled up the Lions in yards, they just kept turning the ball over and getting killer penalties. In fact, the only reason they were in position for Orlovsky to forget where he was was that Adrian coughed up the ball on like the 5 with a lot of daylight ahead of him. (Though to be fair, they were also put in position to win on a questionable penalty, though there was still plenty of time for them to go win it themselves, thought I have my doubts they would have.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/04/2008 1:39:26 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 12/04/2008 @ 03:08:34 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:12:41 AM Navy at Army- ARMY!!! I guess you have to ask yourself which is worth more, the office pool, or your loyalty to the Army, because Navy is going to win the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 03:33:53 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 03:08:34 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 08:12:41 AM Navy at Army- ARMY!!! I guess you have to ask yourself which is worth more, the office pool, or your loyalty to the Army, because Navy is going to win the game. I have been served with reality. Thank you.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 12/04/2008 @ 03:51:15 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:48:23 PM Obviously this is all speculation, but I've read these suspensions only apply to regular season games. I guess that would mean the Vikings would be without them for week one 2009 as well. Which means get ready for another week 1 Packer-Viking game. Case will be heard and decided tomorrow afternoon in federal court. With a non-Minnesota judge.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 12/05/2008 @ 03:15:29 PM
Judge blocks the suspensions of the five players while he considers the arguments. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3747957 So, it looks like they will play this Sunday at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - That hypocrite smokes two packs a day. 12/06/2008 @ 11:29:38 AM
		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 12/06/2008 @ 11:53:36 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 03:33:53 PM Matt Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 03:08:34 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 08:12:41 AM Navy at Army- ARMY!!! I guess you have to ask yourself which is worth more, the office pool, or your loyalty to the Army, because Navy is going to win the game. I have been served with reality. Thank you. Hopefully you went with Navy because they crushed Army 34-0.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	jthompto 12/07/2008 @ 09:30:02 AM
Just so you guys know, the Patriots-Seahawks game was flexed out of sunday night. So no reason to comment on it. You should have been commenting on Ravens-Redskins instead.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 12/07/2008 @ 03:54:57 PM
Favre = rushing TDs, Rodgers = just learned how to throw yesterday		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 12/07/2008 @ 06:08:57 PM
Favre = sucked it up a hell of alot more than Rodgers lately.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 12/07/2008 @ 06:25:13 PM
PackOne Wrote - Today @ 06:08:57 PM Favre = sucked it up a hell of alot more than Rodgers lately. Did you watch the game? I watched both, and while Favre did not have a great game, Rodgers overthrew everyone and the passes he did complete were because our WRs are awesome-o.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	PackOne - 1528 Posts 12/07/2008 @ 08:39:22 PM
I watched both too. Rodgers had a QB rating of over 104 today. They both threw a pick and Rodgers threw a touchdown. Rodgers also threw for twice as many yards, and Favre got a gimme two yarder which he barely made. Rodgers chucked one of the the most perfect deep balls you will ever see into double coverage and directly into the hands of Greg Jennings. You can't overthrow everyone and have a QB rating over 100. Which coincidentally is higher then Big Bens, Cassel, and Romo to name just a few this week. The Packers defense is horrendous. They cannot stop anyone. This has nothing to do with an Aaron Rodgers vs. Brett Favre (perhaps the third best acquisition this off-season for the Jets) argument. Kind of as a side note, I find it funny they are our WR's when they are awesome, but not our QB. Seems to me that that would be a blanket word if used.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
PackOne screwed with this at 12/07/2008 8:45:39 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 07:29:21 AM
I'll go out on a limb and say that Rodgers has not been the problem this season. Anyway, it's high time the Packers just start preparing for the draft.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 09:47:52 AM
Matt Wrote - 12/06/2008 @ 11:53:36 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 03:33:53 PM Matt Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 03:08:34 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - 12/04/2008 @ 08:12:41 AM Navy at Army- ARMY!!! I guess you have to ask yourself which is worth more, the office pool, or your loyalty to the Army, because Navy is going to win the game. I have been served with reality. Thank you. Hopefully you went with Navy because they crushed Army 34-0. I followed your advice and am sitting pretty.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 09:54:05 AM
The team was 13-3 last year and basically everyone, minus one big name, returned and now you're looking at having to win out to not have a losing record. Either you think the Packers over-performed last season, or Rodgers is a large part of the problem. It's not like the game is played in a vacuum. Maybe your offensive line always looked so good before because that extra second Rodgers holds the ball makes all the difference in the world. Maybe your defense wasn't that good last year, but it's easy when you're playing with a bunch of leads. Maybe Ryan Grant put up so many yards down the stretch last season because teams were lined up in their nickle to stop Favre. Just because it's a different area of the team doesn't mean it isn't traceable back to something Rodgers did or Favre would have done. The fact that Rodgers puts up decent numbers is somewhat irrelevant, for whatever reason a QB's numbers aren't a terribly good way of predicting wins and losses. Now, if you're pointing to THE problem it's probably that your defense has given up 1300 yards of offense since beating up the Bears. However, many of these games are still close, and if you STILL think the Packers wouldn't be better with Favre in there you are a crazy person who needs to tear the green IV drip out of their arm. Every time Matt, Jon, and I flipped over to the game for a couple minutes during Viking commercials we either saw the Texans doing everything possible to lose the game, or Rodgers overthrowing a wide open receiver. You really don't think the Packers are a handful of yards here, another first down there, better off with Favre? Because that's really what a a lot of close games come down to.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 12/08/2008 9:58:28 am

	jthompto 12/08/2008 @ 01:14:23 PM
I'll agree with the Packer fans that A-rod is not the reason they are 5-8 this season. But I would have to think the record might be a little better with Favre at the helm. The Packers made the move to their young guy and I think it was reasonable to think they would take a step back before stepping forward. It's probably a good thing for the Packers that the Jets have lost 2 in a row. Because if the Jets were 10-3 right now, everybody would be all over them for not keeping Favre. I really don't like the QB rating stat that much when measuring the skill of a QB. Tavaris Jackson had a 143 rating yesterday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Since 1980! 12/08/2008 @ 01:18:31 PM
could be a mental glitch. well, that and they were overrated last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 02:49:04 PM
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 01:14:23 PM The Packers made the move to their young guy and I think it was reasonable to think they would take a step back before stepping forward. Yes, that would be reasonable. Actually, it would be unreasonable to think there wouldn't be a drop off. The argument is: Would the 2008 Packers be better off than 5-8 with Favre at the helm? There are many packer fans out there who seem to have convinced themselves not, which is silly to me. Would they be 12-1 with Favre? No. Is it even fair to compare them? No. Isn't Rodgers allowed a certain amount of leeway? Yes None of that means it's not also fair to conclude that they would be better off, this year, with Favre. Which also doesn't mean the move was wrong or not for the long term. Just don't sit there with a straight face and pretend Favre would have this team sitting at 5-8 right now.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 03:18:15 PM
oh, FYI I made it too the finals for the office pool- guaranteed 50 bucks, if I win it, 100. how much "hookers and blow" can a guy get with a "c-note"?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 03:22:24 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:54:05 AM You really don't think the Packers are a handful of yards here, another first down there, better off with Favre? Because that's really what a a lot of close games come down to. I've been told we need to strike these comments from the record. This is the rule, not the exception, apparently. the packers have given away leads or ties late in the 4th qtr in at least 4 games. That is on the defense. The Packers run defense is horrible. Every packer writer is attributing this seasons' woes to the defense and some pretty conservative play calling in key times. Would Favre have the Packers in a better position? Maybe. Is Rodgers to blame for the poor record. Absolutely not. Also, the team has seemed to lack any sort of passion from the head coach down to the ball boy. They just didn't have the fire that we're used to seeing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3961 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 03:25:04 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:22:24 PM Also, the team has seemed to lack any sort of passion from the head coach down to the ball boy. They just didn't have the fire that we're used to seeing. I think it's because A-Rod just isn't a gamer.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Matt messed with this at 12/08/2008 3:29:22 pm

	Jeremy - 9563 Posts 12/08/2008 @ 03:43:34 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:22:24 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:54:05 AM You really don't think the Packers are a handful of yards here, another first down there, better off with Favre? Because that's really what a a lot of close games come down to. I've been told we need to strike these comments from the record. This is the rule, not the exception, apparently. Jon declared statements like about your team being a few plays from 3 more wins or whatever "illegal" because any team, even the Lions, could say that. This isn't really that situation, not every team sent a hall of fame QB packing a few months after taking the NFC Championship game to OT. Maybe the team doesn't feel as comfortable taking chances with play calling with Rodgers. Again, nothing happens in a vacuum, and I think "blame" is going too far. Something might not be Rodger's "fault", that doesn't mean he didn't impact it negatively. If your response to "Would Favre have the Packers in a better position?" is "Maybe" than your response to "Is Rodgers the reason the team is in as bad of a position as it is?", or as you said, "Is Rodgers to blame* for the poor record**?" also has to be "maybe." You can't have it both ways, those are corollary statements. *Where "blame" might mean things that aren't necessarily his fault. **Again, we're taking about relative to where this team might be if Favre were the QB. I don't think anyone*** is making the case that Rodgers is single-handedly to blame for any game under 13-3, just that their record is poorer than it would be. ***Well, maybe Sarah is.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/08/2008 4:04:38 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/08/2008 @ 04:02:46 PM
I'm still in the process of trying to convince myself that the Favre move will be better off in the long run (which I believe it will).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 12/08/2008 @ 07:27:15 PM
I'd say it's probable they'd have one or more wins with Favre, but it's not guaranteed. There are a lot of variables, and some of them, like team chemistry are impossible for anyone to really measure/predict what might have been plus most of us don't know diddly about what the team chemistry is like even now. As far as the basically everyone returned from last year goes, KJB and Clifton became washed up and the lines have been their biggest problem. And I'll give you that the O-line would probably have an easier time of things with Favre in there, but even factoring that out they just haven't played to the same level as last year. And I think they've had more injuries in general this year, other than at RB. Either way I'm more upset about Harrell being worthless and the fact that they used a high pick at their strongest position by taking Nelson.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/09/2008 @ 10:25:06 AM
13-3, now that's more like it. Now I have to buckle down and come up with some good picks over the next 3 weeks if I want to reclaim my title from 2006!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/09/2008 10:51:46 am

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 12/09/2008 @ 10:54:09 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:43:34 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 04:22:24 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:54:05 AM You really don't think the Packers are a handful of yards here, another first down there, better off with Favre? Because that's really what a a lot of close games come down to. I've been told we need to strike these comments from the record. This is the rule, not the exception, apparently. Jon declared statements like about your team being a few plays from 3 more wins or whatever "illegal" because any team, even the Lions, could say that. This isn't really that situation, not every team sent a hall of fame QB packing a few months after taking the NFC Championship game to OT. Seriously, stop comparing the Packers situation to the Lions. Obviously there's a difference between a team possibly getting a few more wins and making the playoffs vs a team getting a few more wins for a total of 2 wins on the season. I'm trying to be somewhat intelligent, as opinionated as it might be. I'm not trying to just through out rediculous statements that have no relevance to anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 12/09/2008 @ 11:08:29 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:25:06 AM 13-3, now that's more like it. Now I have to buckle down and come up with some good picks over the next 3 weeks if I want to reclaim my title from 2006! 13-3 is a good week. You should swap out the proven NFL picking portion of your brain for a new exciting method of doing picks to see if you can improve on that next week. I don't see how you could go wrong. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:54:09 AM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:43:34 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:22:24 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:54:05 AM You really don't think the Packers are a handful of yards here, another first down there, better off with Favre? Because that's really what a a lot of close games come down to. I've been told we need to strike these comments from the record. This is the rule, not the exception, apparently. Jon declared statements like about your team being a few plays from 3 more wins or whatever "illegal" because any team, even the Lions, could say that. This isn't really that situation, not every team sent a hall of fame QB packing a few months after taking the NFC Championship game to OT. Seriously, stop comparing the Packers situation to the Lions. Obviously there's a difference between a team possibly getting a few more wins and making the playoffs vs a team getting a few more wins for a total of 2 wins on the season. I'm trying to be somewhat intelligent, as opinionated as it might be. I'm not trying to just through out rediculous statements that have no relevance to anything. I wasn't aware I was "comparing situations." I was just repeating what Jon meant, so I could differentiate why it was different than our wild speculations regarding Favre still being on the team. I wasn't "comparing" the Lions and Packers, it's just that, unless you're undefeated, any team can play the woulda/shoulda/coulda game. Besides, it's still theoretically possible, though unlikely, the Lions end up 3-13 and the Packers end up 5-11, so don't go declaring yourself the vastly superior "just missed the playoffs" team yet.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 12/09/2008 11:09:04 am

	Jon - 3463 Posts 12/11/2008 @ 01:19:53 AM
PackOne Wrote - 12/07/2008 @ 08:39:22 PM I watched both too. Rodgers had a QB rating of over 104 today... jthompto Wrote - 12/08/2008 @ 01:14:23 PM I really don't like the QB rating stat that much when measuring the skill of a QB. Tavaris Jackson had a 143 rating yesterday. I am making a declaration. And this doesn't really have anything to do with the whole favre/rodgers thing. Passer ratings (not qb ratings, since they only measure passing) should only be discussed when the minimum timeframe of that rating is one whole season. I think the rating is given too much weight as it is, we don't need to make the sample size any smaller than a season. It doesn't hold up. I won't go so far as to say the "stat" is meaningless when it is used for small time frames, but I think it really only shows you whether the passer was on fire or terrible or somewhere between the extremes. And even then there are anomalies.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.