NFL 2010 Season Week 17 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 @ Jets 38 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Jets
 |
Jets
|
Jets
|
Jets
|
||||
| Vikings 13 @ Lions 20 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Lions
 |
||||
| Panthers 10 @ Falcons 31 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Raiders 31 @ Chiefs 10 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Chiefs
 |
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
Chiefs
|
||||
| Buccaneers 23 @ Saints 13 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Buccaneers
 |
Buccaneers
|
Saints
 |
Saints
|
||||
| Steelers 41 @ Browns 9 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Bengals 7 @ Ravens 13 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Ravens
 |
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
Ravens
|
||||
| Dolphins 7 @ Patriots 38 Final Sun, 1/2/11 12:00pm
|
Dolphins
 |
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Cardinals 7 @ 49ers 38 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Cardinals
|
49ers
 |
Cardinals
|
||||
| Bears 3 @ Packers 10 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Packers
 |
Bears
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Giants 17 @ Commanders 14 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Giants
 |
Giants
|
Giants
|
Giants
|
||||
| Cowboys 14 @ Eagles 13 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Eagles
 |
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
Eagles
|
||||
| Chargers 33 @ Broncos 28 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Chargers
 |
Chargers
|
Chargers
|
Broncos
 |
||||
| Titans 20 @ Colts 23 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Colts
|
||||
| Jaguars 17 @ Texans 34 Final Sun, 1/2/11 3:15pm
|
Jaguars
 |
Jaguars
|
Jaguars
|
Jaguars
|
||||
| Rams 6 @ Seahawks 16 Final Sun, 1/2/11 7:20pm
|
Seahawks
 |
Rams
 |
Rams
|
Rams
|
||||
| Week Record | 10 - 6 0.625  | 9 - 7 0.562  | 10 - 6 0.625 | 9 - 7 0.562 | ||||
| Season Record | 153 - 103 0.598 | 150 - 106 0.586 | 154 - 102 0.602 | 151 - 105 0.590 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 823 - 500 0.622 | 806 - 517 0.609 | 823 - 500 0.622 | 827 - 496 0.625 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3376 - 1965 0.632 | 3291 - 2050 0.616 | 3398 - 1943 0.636 | 3292 - 2049 0.616 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1500 - 890 0.628 | 1417 - 973 0.593 | 1493 - 897 0.625 | 1486 - 904 0.622 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 156 - 100 0.609 |
| Lifetime: | 837 - 482 0.635 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Dolphins
49ers
Packers
Commanders
Cowboys
Broncos
Colts
Texans
Seahawks
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 153 - 103 0.598 |
| Lifetime: | 813 - 508 0.615 |
MIN @ DET - No Pick
CAR @ ATL - No Pick
LV @ KC - No Pick
TB @ NO - No Pick
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
CIN @ BAL - No Pick
MIA @ NE - No Pick
Cardinals
Packers
Commanders
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Seahawks
| Week: | 4 - 4 0.500 |
| Season: | 141 - 107 0.569 |
| Lifetime: | 598 - 386 0.608 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Bears
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 144 - 96 0.600 |
| Lifetime: | 382 - 255 0.600 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 89 - 58 0.605 |
| Lifetime: | 281 - 162 0.634 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Cowboys
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Seahawks
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 165 - 90 0.647 |
| Lifetime: | 490 - 269 0.646 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 96 - 67 0.589 |
| Lifetime: | 403 - 226 0.641 |
Lions
Falcons
Raiders
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 60 - 33 0.645 |
| Lifetime: | 68 - 39 0.635 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 153 - 103 0.598 |
| Lifetime: | 325 - 197 0.623 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Cardinals
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Broncos
Colts
Texans
Rams
| Week: | 9 - 7 0.562 |
| Season: | 155 - 100 0.608 |
| Lifetime: | 313 - 169 0.649 |
MIN @ DET - No Pick
CAR @ ATL - No Pick
LV @ KC - No Pick
TB @ NO - No Pick
PIT @ CLE - No Pick
CIN @ BAL - No Pick
MIA @ NE - No Pick
49ers
Bears
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Seahawks
| Week: | 5 - 3 0.625 |
| Season: | 141 - 107 0.569 |
| Lifetime: | 189 - 145 0.566 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Cardinals
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 136 - 97 0.584 |
| Lifetime: | 136 - 97 0.584 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Texans
Rams
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 161 - 95 0.629 |
| Lifetime: | 161 - 95 0.629 |
Lions
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Cardinals
Bears
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Seahawks
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 95 - 68 0.583 |
| Lifetime: | 95 - 68 0.583 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Bears
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Texans
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 93 - 60 0.608 |
| Lifetime: | 93 - 60 0.608 |
Vikings
Falcons
Chiefs
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
49ers
Packers
Giants
Eagles
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Rams
| Week: | 10 - 6 0.625 |
| Season: | 82 - 67 0.550 |
| Lifetime: | 82 - 67 0.550 |
Vikings
Falcons
Raiders
Saints
Steelers
Ravens
Patriots
Cardinals
Bears
Giants
Cowboys
Chargers
Colts
Jaguars
Seahawks
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 71 - 40 0.640 |
| Lifetime: | 71 - 40 0.640 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Bears 3 @ Packers 10 | |
 | JeremyGo Panthers! |
 | SarahBears suck, let's hope the Packers stomp'em! |
 | JonThis game aside, I want to say something about these two teams. They seem to have opposite reputations. The Bears do a lot of winning, but people struggle to accept them even as a good team. Meanwhile, the Packers have hovered in the mediocre range all year and yet are given the benefit of the doubt and are looked at as a fierce team. I understand the reasons for these views, but here's the thing. If a team keeps winning over a whole season, even though you think they shouldn't, they're probably a better team than you give them credit for. And if you spend an entire year waiting for a team to be consistently good, but they don't quite get there, odds are they just aren't the kind of team you're waiting for them to be.Yeah, the Packers have lost a lot of close games this year. But that's sort of what happens in the NFL. If you give extra credit for those, then you have to discount the multiple close wins they've had as well. It wouldn't surprise me if the Packers make, and make a good run in, the playoffs. (Nothing in the NFL should surprise anyone at this point.) But I think it's more likely that they continue to be the team they've been all year and mix in some "really good" with a healthy amount of "blah." |
| Rams 6 @ Seahawks 16 | |
| JeremyI'm fine with the current system, even if a 7-9 team makes the playoffs. |
| SarahWords cannot describe how excited I am for this game. Is non-excited a word? Well I guess I can sum it up. |
| JonBoth teams are much better home teams than on the road. But Seattle might not have their qb and I think the Rams are just a better team. |
  | Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 12/29/2010 @ 03:23:27 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
I enjoy the fact that the internet is exploding over the fact that the NFL found nothing to "pin" on Favre, so they slapped some lame ass "you didn't cooperate with us on what we've concluded was a non issue to begin with" fine. It must mean that the NFL is trying to save face and protect their "Golden Boy," despite the fact that he's not at all, and that they almost certainly look worse in the public eye by doing nothing about it. (Not to mention the fact that it would mean Goodell turned down an opportunity to make an example of someone/look like a hard ass disciplinarian.) What it can't possibly mean is that the NFL actually found nothing that led them to beleive it was actually Favre that sent those pictures to a woman who got the whole party started by saying she got "cock shots" from lots of players, and mentioned Favre as an example, then went on to describe several details about said pictures. Pictures which never turned up. And again, Brett isn't blameless, nor does any of this prove it wasn't true, but the amount of people that wanted so badly for it to be true is sad. |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 12/29/2010 3:30:02 pm | ||
  | Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 12/29/2010 @ 04:30:14 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'm ok with the current system, too, even if a 7-9 team makes the playoffs. It doesn't happen very often that a team with a bad record gets in, and that's sort of the point anyway. It makes sense that more weight is put on the division, and the wild-card entries are just that, wild card. Doesn't complain about not making the playoffs if you didn't win your own division. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9543 Posts 12/29/2010 @ 04:47:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Yeah, to a certain extent all you're trying to do is beat the teams in your division. For example, after 1998 the Packers drafted 24398 d backs in the next couple drafts to try and slow down Moss. As far as being a better overall team they might have been better off going elsewhere, but looking at is as going 10-6 while being more certain to beat your closest competition is a safer bet than trying to go 11-5, but letting that other team have 2 wins against you. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 12/29/2010 4:47:54 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 12/30/2010 @ 04:57:47 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I don't remember exactly how they went about doing this, but the 49ers drafted to beat the Packers after the Packers ended their season 3 years in a row, two of those times in San Francisco. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 12/30/2010 @ 06:59:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 2 times. |
|
 | Sarah - How do you use these things? 12/30/2010 @ 07:13:40 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:59:00 PM Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 12/30/2010 @ 07:19:35 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alex Wrote - Today @ 06:59:00 PM Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments Then you live a pretty sad existence. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
![IMG_3063[1].jpg](/images/thumbnail.php?height=30&file=/uploads/IMG_3063[1].jpg){kind=small} | jthompto - 209 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 07:29:01 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Sarah Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Alex Wrote - 12/31/1969 @ 06:00:00 PM Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments Looks like a girl wrote that article. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - How do you use these things? 12/31/2010 @ 09:45:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
jthompto Wrote - Today @ 07:29:01 AM Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 07:13:40 PM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 06:59:00 PM Haven't read this yet, but I got into a word sparring match on Twitter with this guy. Complete moron.Speaking of Moss, this (horribly designed) blog thingy and comments are one of the funniest things I've ever read. http://www.dailynorseman.com/2010/10/6/1735054/vikings-sign-randy-moss-the-packers-are-on-notice#comments Looks like a girl wrote that article. Yea, I really didn't read it when I wrote that, I meant the person who calls himself the daily norseman. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Sarah messed with this at 12/31/2010 11:52:06 am | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 10:53:18 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I don't think I thought of Super Bowl, but I thought there was a dramatic power shift in the NFC North when Moss signed with the Vikings. So this guy, while being an incredible homer, probably wasn't too far off from what some people were thinking, in principle at least: the Vikings are better now that they have Moss. In hindsight, it couldn't have been more untrue. At least in the way Chilli handled him. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 11:52:18 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Well, they were obviously being a bit hyperbolic, but yeah, many people did think that. They were better with Moss, because everyone else went back to their normal roles while he took the top off the defense. Unfortunately while last season's success was 65% Favre throwing deep jump balls to Sidney, we didn't actually use Moss himself for anything. Let's also not forget that when Moss was cut we were on the cusp of having a WR corp of Moss, Harvin, and Rice on the field at the same time. There are infinite sports articles out there that couldn't have been more wrong. Considering half this one was just talking about perception at the time, rather than a prediction, I'm not so sure it even qualifies. The only prediction they really made was that the national perception of the Packers as shoo ins might change, which it did. The Vikings getting Moss almost certainly did make the Packers nervous, Favre probably was happy about it, the media does fawn over the Packers in a way that were it made into movie form would be sold at Adult bookstores, and Randy was a loose cannon that still made the team better. It's hard to even say what the article got wrong. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 11:57:33 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:52:18 AM the media does fawn over the Packers in a way that were it made into movie form would be sold at Adult bookstores  I assume that you can't mean that the Patriots or Cowboys or Colts or Eagles or Steelers or Giants or Jets get less attention than the Packers.At best they are probably the 8th most fawned over team in the NFL. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 12/31/2010 11:58:24 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 12:03:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I don't believe I said anything about the amount of attention, or compared it to anyone else's |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 12/31/2010 @ 04:35:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
That's literally what you said. Without explicitly comparing it to any other team, saying that they are fawned over in such a way as to make it pornographic implies a certain degree of extremeness. Does it not? I suppose I confused "amount" of attention with "type" of attention, or perhaps "manner" in which attention is doled out, but that seems to be splitting hairs. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 12/31/2010 4:38:16 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 12/31/2010 @ 07:22:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| During Packer broadcasts who ever is announcing the games talk over each other to heap praise on anything and everything associated with the Packers organization. Brett Favre's torch of "guy we can't go 18 consecutive seconds without fellating at a distance" has passed to Aaron Rodgers. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/01/2011 @ 08:08:23 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Well, that could be said about a lot of teams, so stating that the media fawns over the packers is like saying it snows in January and claiming that statement to be news. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/01/2011 @ 12:18:29 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| So you agree then that it wasn't something the blog was wrong about? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/02/2011 @ 11:52:30 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Re: Jon's game comment, and what we've been talking about. Michael Strahan just referred to the Packers as "the best team in the NFC" multiple times, and the "hottest" once. They lost 2 games in a row, one of them to the Lions, then beat up on the Giants. They're 1-2 in their last 3. 2-3 in their last 5. I really don't see how any reasonable person can look at the Packers and see anything other than an inconsistent team that has almost as high a chance to implode as explode. The difference is because, as Jon hinted at, and I've been saying, they aren't reporting when they talk about the Packers, they're hoping. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 01/02/2011 3:43:44 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 01/02/2011 @ 05:49:41 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Also, congratulations are in order to the Lions, who didn't deserve to finish last this season. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 01/02/2011 @ 07:31:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 11:52:30 AM They lost 2 games in a row, one of them to the Lions, then beat up on the Giants. They're 1-2 in their last 3. 2-3 in their last 5. One of which to the best team in the league by 4 points, with their backup QB starting for the first time ever, and one of the losses was in Atlanta on a last second field goal to a team that doesn't lose at home. Basically, when the Packers are good, they are as good as anyone. And, in the last half of the season, except for one game, when they do lose, they aren't really that bad. All six of the Packers losses are by 4 points or less. Every single loss was a heart breaker. Only two of their 10 wins were by less than 4 points. That means 80 percent of their wins were by more than one possession and 5 of their 10 wins were by 3 or more possessions. So to claim that you have to give equal weight to close losses as you do close wins is just absurd, because they have blown out of the teams they have beaten and have barely lost the games they lost. It all sounds like sour grapes to me. It seems to me that the Viking fans are doing more hoping than reporting too. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 01/02/2011 @ 07:55:26 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The Packers have beaten 3 playoff teams. One of them was because they got to play the Vickless eagles for half a game, and one of them had nothing to play for. I don't know what you're talking about with the close losses big win stuff, since that's wholly irrelevant. By what reasonable measure could you call the Packers things like "hottest"? Of all teams that one game winning steaks theirs was the most impressive because they followed up almost beating a good team the week before with a blowout? The Packers are the best team in the NFC, but they made the 6th seed on a 3 team tie breaker? Come on, man. It's not sour grapes. No one is saying the Packers aren't a good team, but they aren't a great team, let alone best and people, that are supposed to be impartial, keep insisting they are. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 01/02/2011 8:30:19 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 01/02/2011 @ 08:31:59 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 07:55:26 PM and one of them had nothing to play for. I don't know what you're talking about with the close losses big win stuff, since that's wholly irrelevant. Speaking of something that's wholly irrelavant. Even if that is true (which it is), you gonna tell me that the Bears looked like a team that wasn't playing? Did they have nothing to play for when they got humiliated by the Patriots in Chicago? The same team that the Packers took to the ropes in New England with Matt Flynn under center? If you are going to claim some things are relevant and some aren't, at least be consistent. I'm pretty sure you are trying to not know what I'm talking about regarding close losses/big wins. Jon said the following in his game comments: Yeah, the Packers have lost a lot of close games this year. But that's sort of what happens in the NFL. If you give extra credit for those, then you have to discount the multiple close wins they've had as well. You CAN give extra credit for their 6 close losses while at the same time discounting their 2 close losses because...umm...let me see, there were 6 losses by 4 points or less, 2 losses by 4 points or less, and 8 wins by 2 possessions or less. The Bears on the other hand, won one more game than the Packers, won 7 of their 11 wins by 5 points or less, or in other words, they barely won the games they won. Now I'm not going to discount those wins by any means, but pardon me and every other sane person for comparing a team with 7 of 11 gut wrenching wins to a team with 8 of 10 rather comfortable wins, 5 of which were blow outs. Only three of the Bears wins were by more than 5 points (both of which to the Vikings). 7 of the Packers wins were by 9 points or more (5 by more than 18). The Bears haven't gotten much respect because they have not beaten anyone convincingly. The Packers have looked as good as any team in the league in most of their games. If the Packers had an equal number of close wins as they did loses, then I wouldn't argue about the close losses costing them their record. If your only point is that the Packers get more respect than the Bears and that the Bears should get more respect, ok, point taken. But, It is an argument worth having since they Packers only managed the 6th seed while clearly being a more impressive team week in and week out than the Bears. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 01/02/2011 8:34:10 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/02/2011 @ 09:01:49 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
So, in other words the Packers win by 40, or lose. Sounds like the definition of inconsistent to me.  The Bears didn't lay down, but we don't know how things would have gone if they had to play for real. Maybe Devin Hester doesn't puss out on every punt if the game matters. Maybe they played a more vanilla game plan than they otherwise would have to not tip their hand if they play again. Maybe they blitzed less. Maybe they used the game to do a little experimenting on plays/personnel packages. Losses by less than 10: Bears: 3, 3, 5, 7 Lions: 5,3,2,8,3,2,4 Vikings: 5, 4, 9, 4, 7 Packers: 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4 Yes, the Packers have had good wins, and tough luck losses, but Packer fans need to a) Stop acting like they own the close loss b) if you want to make some case that it's especially bad for the Packers at some point take some responsibility for them too. Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, no doubt, but I feel like he's getting a pass on the fact that he often fails when the pressure is on with "it's on the defense" hand waving, even though they often end the game with the ball in his hands and he's been given good defenses. We seem to be having the "but look how many heartbreakers they lost" conversation a lot in the Rodgers era. (Also, I never really compared them to the Bears, Jon did, I only took umbrage to the "hottest" and "best in the NFC" nonsense.) |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 8 times, last at 01/02/2011 9:36:56 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/02/2011 @ 09:48:56 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Memories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEq7p4r00U |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/02/2011 @ 09:55:26 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
A loss by less than 10 isn't a good benchmark to use to compare close losses, because that's two posessions. If you are going to count close losses, you have to limit it to 8 points or less, or in that case, 6 or fewer, since if it's six you actually win the game with a touchdown. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:01:49 PM Yes, the Packers have had good wins, and tough luck losses, but Packer fans need to a) Stop acting like they own the close loss b) if you want to make some case that it's especially bad for the Packers at some point take some responsibility for them too. Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, no doubt, but I feel like he's getting a pass on the fact that he often fails when the pressure is on with "it's on the defense" hand waving, even though they often end the game with the ball in his hands and he's been given good defenses. We seem to be having the "but look how many heartbreakers they lost" conversation a lot in the Rodgers era. I don't have time to do the analysis, but there is some truth to the fact that Rodgers, while having a good defense during his tenure, has gotten the short end of the stick on many occasions. He has put his team ahead or made them tied on a number of occasions only to have the defense give up the lead on the very next possession. Now it's worth noting that other QBs don't lose those games, but in regard to this discussion, whether or not Rodgers is the reason they lose these close games is irrelevant. I feel like the topic is changing suddenly. Maybe because my points were too good. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/02/2011 @ 10:02:31 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Ok, so 8 points or fewer takes 1 number out of all those. We're "shifting" because I'm just responding to your unrelated points. Calling one of 3 9-6 teams, fighting for the last playoff spot, the "best" and a team coming off a terrible loss, a moral victory, and one actual victory, the "hottest" is borderline asinine, and illustrates the type of thing I was talking about earlier. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this at 01/02/2011 10:07:32 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 01/02/2011 @ 10:02:33 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Furthermore, I'm putting context to what I'm saying here, without which the point is not valid. I'm not saying "oh man, the Packers have some close losses so they are the only teams getting stung by close losses." I more saying that they ONLY have close losses. So compared to a lot of teams, they sort of do own the close loss. They never got blown out, they never lost by more than one possession. Every single one of their losses was by 4 points or less and 80% of their wins were by 9 points or more. Inconsistent? Yes. Cause to believe they are better than their record? Your kidding yourself if you think otherwise, in my opinion. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/03/2011 @ 02:16:36 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| The playoff picks are available for picking yet. Just FYI. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - So's your face 01/03/2011 @ 06:09:28 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott you're wasting your breath trying to say anything positive about the Packers to Vikings fans. Just be happy the Packers are in the playoffs. I understood your points, but then again I'm the choir. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/04/2011 @ 12:33:53 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| That's not what's going on here at all. There's a difference between "saying something positive" and guys that are supposed to be impartial breathlessly gushing about how the just-eeked-their-way-into-the-playoffs-by-barely-winning-at-home-over-a-team-that-had-nothing-to-play-for Packers are the greatest team ever assembled. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jon - 1 bajillion posts 01/04/2011 @ 12:35:46 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. I think the Packers are a good team 2. I think the Bears are a good team 3. I think it's funny that Packer fans generally consider the Bears clearly inferior despite a better record and (only now) a split head to head where both games were close. Based on the prevailing opinions of the two teams, the Packers should be embarrassed that they didn't win by 3 touchdowns. Maybe both teams are..wait for it...about as good as their record says they are. Again, I think the Packers are good. But not great. Or very good. Or significantly above good. Just good. Like a 10-6 team. I don't think a 10-6 "win big/lose close" team is any better suited for the playoffs than a 10-6 team whose wins and losses were mixed. A 14-2 team or 13-3 team whose only losses were close might be something. But at what point are a bunch of close losses just an indication that you're a pretty good but not very good team? I'd say 6 of 16 games would be enough. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 01/04/2011 @ 12:43:42 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jon Wrote - Today @ 12:35:46 AM 1. I think the Packers are a good team 2. I think the Bears are a good team 3. I think it's funny that Packer fans generally consider the Bears clearly inferior despite a better record and (only now) a split head to head where both games were close. Based on the prevailing opinions of the two teams, the Packers should be embarrassed that they didn't win by 3 touchdowns. Maybe both teams are..wait for it...about as good as their record says they are. Again, I think the Packers are good. But not great. Or very good. Or significantly above good. Just good. Like a 10-6 team. I don't think a 10-6 "win big/lose close" team is any better suited for the playoffs than a 10-6 team whose wins and losses were mixed. A 14-2 team or 13-3 team whose only losses were close might be something. But at what point are a bunch of close losses just an indication that you're a pretty good but not very good team? I'd say 6 of 16 games would be enough. Indeed. At some point "we only lose close ones" is an indictment of your team, and not just crap luck. When it's the Lions going 6-10 despite being within 5 of the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game dropping 7 it's "Well, that's why they're the Lions." When the Packers drop 6 of them it's "oh, what a heart breaker!" Not to mention that's sort of a crummy heuristic anyway, because the NFL doesn't play until a team wins by at least 7, you only need to win by one. The winning team often could score more, but they play the clock as much as the scoreboard. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 01/04/2011 9:56:09 am | ||
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/04/2011 @ 07:47:27 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:43:42 AM Indeed. At some point "we only lose close ones" is an indictment of your team, and not just crap luck. When it's the Lions going 6-10 despite being within 5 of the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game dropping 7 it's "Well, that's why they're the Lions." When the Packers drop 6 of them it's "oh, what a heat breaker!" Not to mention that's sort of a crummy heuristic anyway, because the NFL doesn't play until a team wins by at least 7, you only need to win by one. The winning team often could score more, but they play the clock as much as the scoreboard. In a vacuum, there is nothing to argue with about this statement. But I don't think it applies to the comparison between Bears and Packers because the Bears have to say "we lose close games AND we get blown out occasionally". I'm saying if you look at the body of work, the Packers have been a more impressive team. They haven't ever been dominated in any stretch of the imagination. The Bears got absolutely humiliated at home by the Patriots. Other than the Lions game, the Packers haven't been shutdown this season. Despite their records, which is only 1 game, the Packers wins have been more impressive and their losses have been less questionable. The Lions have lost a number of heart breakers, but please don't compare a 6-10 team to a 10-6 team. You still have to win games. If the Packers were 6-10 and I were arguing that they were better than the 2 seed because they have close losses I would be calling myself insane too. I feel like the other side of this argument is being laid forward as "The Bears have a better record so it is insane to say that the Packers are a better team." I disagree with that statement. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 01/04/2011 @ 09:52:29 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I wasn't "comparing" the Lions and Packers, and I don't think anyone is necessarily "comparing" the Bears and Packers. We're talking about the attitude. Could someone make a case the Packers are the better team? Sure. However the national discussion is that the Bears suck, and that the Packers are the best team in the NFC, which is contrary to reality. That's all we're talking about. Plus what's more humiliating, getting blown out by the best team in the league, or getting completely stymied by, and losing to, the then 2 win Lions in what looked to be a must-win game? I think you could make a good case for either. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 01/07/2011 @ 05:52:01 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
The Packers have the biggest point differential in the NFC by a wide margin. The next closest is the Falcons, and after that it's a landslide. The Packers have won 7 of their last 10 games (only 1 NFC did better), and two of their 3 losses in that time frame were to the conference number 1s. Maybe people are talking about the Bears not being good because despite their record they've never really looked that good. And maybe people are talking about the Packers as being good is because, despite their record, they have looked a ton better (than, say, the Bears). I'm not saying the Packers should be given the Lombardi trophy or anything like that. It's just not that absurd to be making that particular claim, if that's what you are arguing about. The only definitive point one can make about why the Packers aren't the best team is their record. So from a strictly hard core objective viewpoint, clearly that's the case. But, when you start breaking down the different stats (and I don't mean murdering the numbers to say that somehow the Panthers are as good as the Patriots; so far for this point, I haven't ventured off of this page to gather my stats, which a click on a few of the teams' sites just to see their schedules), you can take a different approach and see things a different way. Basically, I don't see it as drastically absurd or as asinine as you are making it seem. (I should get a life, maybe one where I write about house projects) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 01/07/2011 5:54:44 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/07/2011 @ 06:06:44 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
One last note: I'll put it this way, a team that wins a lot of close games and doesn't score a lot of points, has a QB who's terrible for a number of games and pretty good in other games doesn't strike people as being an impressive team. I think that's where some of the discussion comes from. |
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 13 @ Lions 20
Jeremy
Webb looked good out there, but let's tone down the excitement a little, he didn't throw for 600 yards and 7 TDs.Sarah
How does this game help the Packers get into the playoffs? It doesn't? Then nobody cares...Jon
It's been fun Brett.