NFL 2009 Season Week 14 Picks

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 12/10/2009 @ 08:14:10 AM
Congratulations are in order for Aaron Rodgers who only needed 1.8 seasons to surpass the number of wins Brett Favre led essentially the same team to in his last year as a Packer. No slack for a rookie quarterback? (well, last year he was anyway).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/10/2009 @ 09:23:53 AM
It's largely not Aaron's fault, it just highlights the idiocy that is telling your HOF QB to beat it* following a 13-3 NFC Championship game season. *You can blame Brett's waffling, and point to the fact that they would have taken him back, but it would have been begrudgingly. Ted Thompson had been hinting he wanted Brett to go for years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the annual Will I/Won't I's started then. The fact that on the flip side neither of them wanted to be the guy that would always be known as the guy who sent Brett packing is a red herring.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/10/2009 @ 11:13:00 AM
If you claim that Brett Favre isn't carrying the Vikings, then I would say it isn't that idiodic for the Packers to have moved on. The Packers need someone to carry their team, especially passing, since they basically have no running game. I don't think Favre is capable of carrying a team anymore, especially in the cold. He was hurt last year, but he did struggle down the stretch. Basically, I flat out think the Packers made the right move. It probably went against conventional wisdom, but ultimately I think the Packers are better off. I didn't realize this was still up for debate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 12/10/2009 @ 05:12:12 PM
I didn't say that, and that doesn't follow anyway. The Packers were one point away from the Superbowl, then won 6 games the next year. I didn't realize there was a debate either, pretty straight forward. Will the Packers be better off next year, or 3 years from now, because Rodgers got another season in? Possibly. But what does "better off" mean? Playoffs instead of not? 8-8 rather than 6-10 again? The team was coming off a huge year. It wasn't the time to rebuild. It's idiotic looking back on it, and 10 times more idiotic if you remove hindsight from it, since for all they knew Rodgers would be the worst QB to ever play the game. You win now, and, for the most part, worry about the future later.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 12/10/2009 @ 07:47:56 PM
He didn't have much actual game experience, but they had 3 years of training camp, preseason, and practices to evaluate him. It's not like they drafted a top 5 pick in the 08 draft and said, ok you're the starting QB. I forgot to pick. Stupid Thursday night games. If Congress wants to diddle around in sports they should ban Thursday night games. If affects millions of peoples fantasy football players in mostly a bad way, which could lead to stress or depression, and cause health issues. So really they could just toss this in to the health care reform bill.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/10/2009 @ 10:43:26 PM
Yeah, but the annals of draft busts are filled with guys that looked good until the live ammo was busted out.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	RUFiO1984 - 219 Posts 12/11/2009 @ 06:23:42 AM
Everyone is in the pooper!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 12/11/2009 @ 11:07:21 AM
I'm only using hindsight to justify what I've held all along, that moving on with Aaron Rodgers was a smart move. They WERE one point away from the Super Bowl. So? They weren't exactly a juggernaut that year. It's hard to think that they would have just repeated the next year, especially since their defense last year decided to just flat out fall apart. In other words, Rodgers was not really the reason they ended up bad last year. So to review, I now and have always believed that the Packers made the correct decision, and I clearly have not been proven wrong. And from the analysis of almost any NFL analyst, the Packers are better with Rodgers right now than they would be with Favre.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 12/11/2009 @ 11:31:25 AM
The Brett Favre led 2008 Packers could have gone 0-16, it was still the wrong move. The outcome (which was actually much worse anyway) really has nothing to say on the matter. I know I said this back then, but it's like being dealt 20 in Blackjack and hitting. You're ignoring overwhelming odds against you, and the odds that are already in your favor. If you then get dealt an ace it doesn't make your decision any smarter. On top of that, they won 7 fewer games the following year. That's almost half a season's worth of games. Imagine the Brewers dumping Fielder or Braun, the year after the finally made the playoffs and looked like they could go places with a few more polishes, and then losing 71 more games than they did the previous year.* I don't know how much more "proven wrong" you can be. (Unless you want to pretend that Brett Favre was never in on a team that lost a lead in the 4th quarter, and that offense can't effect the defense. Or that Corey Williams was actually the lynch-pin of the 13-3 2007 version of the Packers, and not the HOF QB they replaced with a rookie.) Also, I'm not sure how you can make the case that the Packers are "better off" with Rodgers. Favre is having an MVP type season. Rodgers certainly isn't doing poorly, but it's a stupid thing to pretend that you'd know even if Favre was mowing his lawn this year, let alone while he's had more successes than Rodgers. (Rodgers turned a 13-3 team into a 6-10 team, and Favre turned a 4 win team into a 9-7 team and had people talking Superbowl prior to getting hurt.) Again, it was almost certainly the wrong move in hindsight, and an indefensible move without it. *Of course this is a flawed analogy because one fluke loss in football has a much greater impact, but it's merely meant to reflect the weight of the difference, combined with the timing of the change, in which we're talking here.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy edited this 2 times, last at 12/11/2009 11:39:39 am

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 12/11/2009 @ 01:14:05 PM
What does it mean if the Jets finish with the same record as last year?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 12/11/2009 @ 01:27:28 PM
Eric Mangini belongs in Cleveland?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/11/2009 @ 01:43:57 PM
RUFiO1984 Wrote - Today @ 06:23:42 AM Everyone is in the pooper! Funnily enough, we're all the Trophy. 0-1 is good enough for 1st right now. (As always you have to pick all the games to qualify.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 12/11/2009 @ 04:55:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:31:25 PM Again, it was almost certainly the wrong move in hindsight, and an indefensible move without it. It IS defended by pretty much every legitimate national NFL mind. And you want hindsight? Favre got hurt last year and that pretty much cost the Jets their season. So what if the Packers finished 6-10. They took a risk knowing that there might be some time to materialize. But hindsight shows that it absolutely was the right move. Favre fits wonderfully with the Vikings. He would not be doing this well with the Packers, for one, because the Packers have NO running game and he would have had to BE the team from week 1. Favre has played wonderfully all season, but part of that might be because he has had such a supporting cast specifically because of having a stud of a running back. Favre flat out fits with the Vikings, and ironically enough, probably will continue to benefit because they play indoors. One of the big things that seemed to mark the beginning of the end for Favre in GB was a few games in december and the playoffs (in the same season they got to the NFC Championship game) where he played just awful, and seemed to be greatly affected by the cold; this was probably just a natural result of getting old. But seriously, hindsight makes the decision look a lot better. The Packers this season are currently in a playoff spot, so there's nothing wrong with that, and they have easy schedule to close out the season. And, they have a good QB they know they can rely on for several years now, which they may have lost out on had they continued to snub him. Here's a more accurate statement: Again, it was almost certainly the wrong is proving to be a good move in hindsight, and an indefensible a risky, if not difficult move with the teams future in mind without it. *oh, and the 0-nut is not from me.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott messed with this 5 times, last at 12/11/2009 4:58:14 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/11/2009 @ 05:05:57 PM
Is there a kicking myself emoticon for not going with the Browns? Drats, darn, and so forth!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/11/2009 @ 05:28:20 PM
It certainly wasn't defended much at the time. The closest it ever came to being defended was mentioning that when the chips were finally down it was potentially too late in the offseason, but that's not really an evaluation of the decision, and ignoring the lead up. Besides, we're also not talking about the 2009 Packers. The closest this year comes to being relevant is a) showing that last year's decision can't be justified in any "Brett's got nothing left" sense. Your point about the cold might make some sense, were it not the case that Aaron won his first cold game ever 4 days ago and b) that the Packers have a better chance of winning a Superbowl this year with Rodgers having one more year under his belt, then if they just went to him this year, and played for the Superbowl last year. The 2009 Packers might be better off with Rodgers, but that isn't the discussion. This year would have to be reevaluated as it's own distinct circumstances. No one ever said the decision had to be get rid of Favre last year, or keep/start him until he dies. The only matter at hand for if you want to talk about the move in terms of this year is: Are the 2009 Packers better enough, relative to where they would be, with 2nd year Starter Rodgers vs 1st year starter Rodgers, than the 2008 Packers would have been with Favre vs Rodgers, evaluated in a "looking at the odds without hindsight" sense. Building for the future makes no sense coming off a 13-3 season. Five plus years from now that extra season under Rodgers' belt is going to be almost meaningless. You had a chance to put some polishing touches on a team that couldn't have come much closer to the superbowl while still missing out, and instead sent the most important player on any team, and this one more so than most, packing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/11/2009 @ 07:23:32 PM
Hester's out against the Pack on Sunday, I'll probably never hear the end of it. On a way cooler side note, FSN is showing a Twins special - A September to Remember on Saturday at 7, watch it!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 12/12/2009 @ 06:16:33 AM
I've said all this before, but why not again. All we do is have the same Favre-based arguments over and over again anyway. Each team probably has the proper qb for this 2009 season, but I'm with Jeremy (as I was back when it happened) that the Packers decision was a poor one when they made it. They were holding all the cards. Even if they thought Rodgers was going to be awesome in 2008, they could have just added Favre to the mix. If Favre really wasn't as good, you play Rodgers. If Favre is better, you still have Rodgers. People think it's not that simple. And I'll agree -- to the extent that none of the scenarios we put on paper are really as simple when applied to real life. But there are two arguments that people brought up for why that wouldn't work. One was that they didn't want the awkward/bad PR situation of having to bench Favre. Which is funny, because they really avoided that didn't they? Oh, sure it's much better to have the organization and, within the next two years, 80% of its fans give their best player EVER the proverbial finger and create an ongoing awkwardness from here on out. As it was, Favre had put himself on the outside and they could have been the nice guys that brought him back. If they had to bench him, would they really have been blamed? I doubt it would have been as much as they were blamed for trading him. The other argument was that they needed to see what Rodgers had before his contract time was up so they knew what to do with him. But what kind of reasoning is that? If you feel he's good enough to start and replace Favre in 2008, then you had better already be sure of him anyway. If not, why throw away a key component of the team that just went 13-3? "Sorry guys, I know you want to reach the Super Bowl this year, like you almost did last year, but we're going to use this season to collect data on one player instead and hope it all works out in the future." It really all comes down to this: In short, which qb trio would really have given the 2008 Packers the best chance to get back to the NFC championship game: Favre-Rodgers-Flynn or Rodgers-Flynn-Brohm?		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jon messed with this 5 times, last at 12/12/2009 6:29:32 am

	PackOne - "That's what I call gettin a piece of Pi" 12/12/2009 @ 10:47:14 AM
Is this the first time that everyone has had a trophy and no one picked a winner?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 12/12/2009 @ 10:54:28 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:43:57 PM RUFiO1984 Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:23:42 AM Everyone is in the pooper! Funnily enough, we're all the Trophy. 0-1 is good enough for 1st right now. (As always you have to pick all the games to qualify.) Why not just go by the number of correct picks?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 12/13/2009 @ 05:06:28 AM
Lysmal, I was a little surprised to see that you picked Buffalo. Then I checked and noticed you don't seem to like picking KC. A good strategy overall I suppose. Still, it is the Bills.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this 3 times, last at 12/13/2009 5:11:04 am

	Jfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!! 12/13/2009 @ 11:33:06 AM
I would like to note that as of today I am the leading nutcanner for the season :). Thank you please save your applauses for later :D		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 12:00:36 PM
Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.
Sarah perfected this at 12/13/2009 12:00:55 pm

	Matt - 3875 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 12:00:42 PM
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 11:33:06 AM I would like to note that as of today I am the leading nutcanner for the season :). Thank you please save your applauses for later :D Actually, you aren't. We go by number of correct picks here, which means Sarah is the leader. EDIT: It seems Sarah beat me to the punch.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 3 times.
Matt perfected this 2 times, last at 12/13/2009 3:26:53 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 03:34:11 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:00:36 PM Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games. Check again...		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 12/13/2009 @ 03:39:14 PM
Also, on a lighter note, I won a Josh Freeman jersey for calling into a radio show for a trivia question. The Question: who holds the record for most interceptions thrown in a single season. The Answer? Anyone....Anyone? George Blanda. That may have been the guess for some on NutCan as it has become common knowledge that Blanda's was the record Favre broke for career interceptions. What I found interesting, the people who were calling in didn't guess anyone older than Dan Marino, and there were a lot of guesses. I swear, sometimes people think that football only dates back to 1980 or something like that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 04:41:07 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:34:11 PM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 12:00:36 PM Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games. Check again... Check what?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 04:47:45 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 05:41:07 PM Scott Wrote - Today @ 04:34:11 PM Sarah Wrote - Today @ 01:00:36 PM Percentage wise yes, but you've picked way less games than the real leader --- me! 193-151 before the noon games. Check again... Check what? I'm winning by 1 win. edit: my bad. While I am currently winning, I see that Sarah was refering to the standings prior to the start of the games today. Edit2: also, where did you get those numbers from? You don't have 193 wins yet. Edit3: wait, those might be total games picked between you and JFK, not wins and losses.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/13/2009 4:50:23 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 12/13/2009 @ 07:20:10 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/308065-come-to-think-of-it-bears-lovie-smith-challenges-final-score-satire What was he thinking though? I'll call a time out, then throw the challenge flag and lose another precious timeout. Unbelievable.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 12/15/2009 @ 09:52:44 AM
Jeremy The Cardinals embarrassed the Vikings and clicked on all cylinders. Look for them to add insult to injury this week by completely melting down. Tada!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.