NFL 2012 Season Divisional Playoffs 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 16 Picks.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Bengals 13 @ Texans 19 Final Sat, 1/5/13 3:30pm
|
Texans
 |
Texans
|
Texans
|
Bengals
 |
||||
| Vikings 10 @ Packers 24 Final Sat, 1/5/13 7:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Packers
 |
||||
| Colts 9 @ Ravens 24 Final Sun, 1/6/13 12:00pm
|
Ravens
 |
Colts
 |
Ravens
|
Colts
|
||||
| Seahawks 24 @ Commanders 14 Final Sun, 1/6/13 3:30pm
|
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
Commanders
 |
||||
| Week Record | 3 - 1 0.750  | 2 - 2 0.500 | 3 - 1 0.750 | 1 - 3 0.250  | ||||
| Season Record | 169 - 90 0.652 | 162 - 97 0.625 | 165 - 94 0.637 | 171 - 88 0.660 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 1164 - 696 0.626 | 1123 - 737 0.604 | 1159 - 701 0.623 | 1182 - 678 0.635 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3419 - 1974 0.634 | 3333 - 2060 0.618 | 3437 - 1956 0.637 | 3336 - 2057 0.619 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 1841 - 1086 0.629 | 1734 - 1193 0.592 | 1829 - 1098 0.625 | 1841 - 1086 0.629 |
Packers
Colts
Commanders
| Week: | 1 - 3 0.250 |
| Season: | 163 - 96 0.629 |
| Lifetime: | 1151 - 707 0.620 |
Packers
Colts
Commanders
| Week: | 2 - 2 0.500 |
| Season: | 53 - 38 0.582 |
| Lifetime: | 608 - 388 0.610 |
Packers
Ravens
Seahawks
| Week: | 4 - 0 1.000 |
| Season: | 154 - 103 0.599 |
| Lifetime: | 300 - 185 0.619 |
Packers
Ravens
Commanders
| Week: | 2 - 2 0.500 |
| Season: | 172 - 70 0.711 |
| Lifetime: | 633 - 316 0.667 |
Packers
Colts
Commanders
| Week: | 1 - 3 0.250 |
| Season: | 165 - 88 0.652 |
| Lifetime: | 438 - 261 0.627 |
Packers
Colts
Commanders
| Week: | 1 - 3 0.250 |
| Season: | 169 - 90 0.652 |
| Lifetime: | 433 - 257 0.627 |
Packers
Ravens
Seahawks
| Week: | 3 - 1 0.750 |
| Season: | 176 - 83 0.679 |
| Lifetime: | 429 - 218 0.663 |
Packers
Ravens
Seahawks
| Week: | 4 - 0 1.000 |
| Season: | 158 - 88 0.642 |
| Lifetime: | 302 - 178 0.629 |
Packers
Colts
Commanders
| Week: | 2 - 2 0.500 |
| Season: | 168 - 91 0.649 |
| Lifetime: | 182 - 105 0.634 |
Vikings
Ravens
Commanders
| Week: | 2 - 2 0.500 |
| Season: | 122 - 90 0.576 |
| Lifetime: | 122 - 90 0.576 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
| Vikings 10 @ Packers 24 | |
 | JeremyI have it on good authority that the Packers didn't try to win their last game because they wanted to avoid playing the Bears in the playoffs, and because they didn't want the bye. |
 | SarahBut not with this game. Cobb was the missing ingredient on Sunday, things will be alright.... please please please. |
 | JonThe Vikings went 10-6 this season. |
| Colts 9 @ Ravens 24 | |
| JeremyHow about those Colts? Hard not to pull for them. |
| SarahI don't know what "it" is, but the Ravens haven't had it for a few weeks. #ChuckStrong |
| JonStrange teams. The Ravens had some close outcomes this year. Eight of their regular season games were decided by 3 points or fewer. Half their games! They were 5-3 in those games if you care. I care more about the home/away numbers for these teams. Baltimore is 6-2 at home and the Colts are 4-4 on the road. The Colts were also outscored on the season as a whole. Now, I think the Giants actually had that accomplishment last year and still went on to win the Super Bowl. But I wouldn't predict it will happen again. |
| Seahawks 24 @ Commanders 14 | |
| JeremyI predict a combined 10 minutes of game time of QB running. (Not necessarily down field, mind you.) |
| SarahSuper tough call, but I want the Redskins to win. |
| JonToo bad this has to be a first round matchup. Now, the Seahawks are much better at home than on the road. But I think they're good enough at this point of the season to win this on the road. Washington has won seven straight, but I don't think they've faced a defense like Seattle during that time. If this were in Seattle, the pick would be easier. But it's in Washington. I still think they win. |
  | Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 01/09/2013 @ 01:14:52 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| Up |
Yours:
 
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
  | Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/09/2013 @ 04:38:00 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jay Cutler has a career record of 1-7 against the Packers, plus the Packers knocked him out of that game. So I'll say that losing Jay Cutler for whoever they had as their backup wasn't much of a downgrade. So that's a reach. Christian Ponder is a career 1-3 against the Packers, and it was the Packers who knocked him out of the game the week before, so that's hard to complain about.* Plus, he himself is a backup QB who has to start on a team that has no good quarterbacks. And if you are including Colin Kaepernick, then you really are reaching for a narrative, since the 49ers choose to make the QB switch half way through the season even when their viable starter recovered from his 1 game injury. So if any team that has any injury to or makes a change in their QB who then ends up playing the Packers is going to be added to some list of teams that indicates the Packers somehow getting off easy, then I suppose we can find almost anything we want to find to lead the narrative we are seeking.** *So two of the guys I assume you are referring to have a career record against the Packers of 2-10. I'd say losing those QBs could hardly be described as "the Packers are so lucky", since they seemed to be pretty effective against those teams with the guy that didn't play. So if anything, the Packers were unfortunate to not be able to play against Ponder or Cutler (for the whole game). **Edit: although, to be fair, I shouldn't assume that there was a narrative being peddled. I'll assume it was just pointing out a statistic that has nothing to do with anything. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 01/09/2013 5:01:58 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Resident Tech Support 01/09/2013 @ 05:11:03 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Despite the week 1 loss, I'm going to assume that the historic dominance over the last 2 decades of the Packers over the 49ers will continue. I'm also going to assume that the Falcons will figure out a way to finally win a playoff game. Although I'm torn on this one, since I'm pretty sure the league has rigged these two games so that we can have a sequal to the Fail Mary game. Could you imagine the narrative that would move? I'm going to assume that the Broncos, who seemed Super Bowl ready minus a legitimate QB last year, are Super Bowl ready now that they have a legitimate QB. And I'm going to assume that the Patriots are the still the Patriots. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - I hate our freedoms 01/09/2013 @ 06:03:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Kap was just a reference to the fact that some Packer fans often tout the "week 1 starters on IR" thing as if that's necessarily anything. First off, sheer numbers mean jack squat, a team with 10 injuries can be less effected than one team with 1, if it's the right player. Secondly, it ignores the fact that injuries often lead to the better player getting their chance, open the door for making a key pickup that changes things. It was mostly tongue in cheek, but 1.5 of the last 4, and getting hurt for that game no less, is fairly lucky, you'd have to admit. Even if it's Cutler and Ponder. The Bears almost won anyway, fair to speculate Cutler not getting hurt vs throwing the second string out there mid NFC Championship game could have been the difference. Ponder just beat the Packers 6 days earlier with his best game so far, and played them close on the road with his worst game so far. If you don't think Joe Webb being tossed out there was a fortunate break for the Packers, then I'm pretty sure you and I watched different games. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy perfected this at 01/09/2013 6:06:10 pm | ||
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 01/09/2013 @ 07:25:28 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I'm not sure what part of that post combined with your initial game comment makes less sense or is more attempting to absurd for the sake of absurd. Sure, losing a future hall of fame QB could cost a team more dearly than a team that loses 10 journeymen starters. The only reason to point out "week 1 starters" was never intended by anyone to suggest that somehow the Packers had a lineup filled with 22 hall of fame players and that now they are bunch of nobodies. losing 10 or however many players for the year is tough to overcome, if for no other reason than it's tough to field a full roster. It's something to the extent that no team has ever gone to the Super Bowl with such circumstances. I don't care how many players emerge as stars because of injuries, losing that many players over a short period of time for any team is not an easy thing to overcome. So nobody is ignoring anything. They are stating the obvious; that is, losing 28% of your week one roster to season ending injury is difficult to deal with. I think people bring it up is because a lot of people like to theorize that the Packers are this "nothing bad ever happens the us" team and "every team they play is missing half their roster", and so the natural response to that is "dude, we actually lost half our roster and were still the World Champs that year" or "dude, no one has ever been able to overcome the sheer number of season ending injuries that we did to eventually win the Super Bowl". (it was actually 15 players on IR prior to the playoffs, some of which were nobodies, but they included their starting RB who was coming off 2 consecutive 1200 yard seasons, their starting middle linebacker, and then lost their Charles Woodson, (pro bowler and defensive MVP the previous year) and Donald Driver (who was still the Packers #2 receiver) in the Super Bowl itself! The Steelers were doing nothing offensively when Woodson was in the game. Once he got hurt, suddenly it became a game) The point is that pointing out that the Packers sometimes play teams that have injuries ignores the fact that they themselves sometimes have injuries, on top of the fact that the injuries that are being pointed out in this case that shows how supposedly lucky or fortunate the Packers might be might actually be of no significance at all Secondly, Jay Cutler, for whatever reason has sucked against the Packers. And I mean absolutely terrible. Like worst QB in history. In 8 games he has 9 TD passes and 16 interceptions. That's 32 interceptions in a 16 game seasons bad. That's 2 interceptions per game bad! And he only threw one in that game, so he was bound to throw another. And he also was completing less than 50 percent of his passes in that game and had only 80 yards in the first half. Caleb Haney came in had nearly double the yards and was much more efficient passing. So yes, losing Jay Cutler in that game was the best chance the Bears had to actually beat the Packers. And yes, Christian Ponder had the best game probably of career the week before (and probably the best game a Vikings QB has had against the Packers in a few years), and the Vikings won a do or die game in perfect conditions on a last second field goal. I was strongly betting that lightening wasn't going to strike twice, and the Ponder that we all came to know in love throughout the majority of the season was the one that was going to show up again. Heck, if the Vikings coaching staff had used Webb like they did in the first drive but for the entire game, the game might have been a lot different. "The Packers can't seem to stop the option reads because our QB is really elusive and mobile, but since he hasn't thrown a pass all season, let's make him a pocket passer the rest of the game." Since we will never know what Ponder would have been like in the playoff game, it's speculation on both of our parts as to how he might have played (you can speculate that he would reproduce the 3 games where he looked like he's played football before, I can speculate that he might reproduce the 10 games where he looked like a pop warner player. Either way, we're both just speculating). So that is probably a push. As far is Cutler goes, I stand by my statement. Jay Cutler sucks against the Packers and he was doing even worse than usual in that game. And Kap might actually be a better QB than Alex Smith |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 4 times, last at 01/09/2013 7:38:00 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/09/2013 @ 07:40:05 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Also, Sarah, your game comment about the Packer game reads: Packers owen the 49ers in the playoffs. Bastards! Was that a Freudian slip, or did you actually mean owen, like Terrell Owens. Because seriously, too soon. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 01/09/2013 @ 09:21:20 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Dude, Webb was horrible. http://www.diehardsport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/webb1.gif |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/09/2013 @ 09:21:58 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Would it matter if I simply said "the Packers had 15 players land on IR" rather than make the additional distinction that those players were on the opening day roster? It's one thing for a guy to be a bum and get replaced by another player who might be performing better. It's another for a guy to be forced into a starting spot because the guy above him just broke his leg. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Sarah - 4691 Posts 01/09/2013 @ 09:28:05 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:40:05 PM Also, Sarah, your game comment about the Packer game reads: Packers owen the 49ers in the playoffs. Bastards! Was that a Freudian slip, or did you actually mean owen, like Terrell Owens. Because seriously, too soon. I never make mistakes. Although maybe it was in poor taste. My apologies. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9563 Posts 01/09/2013 @ 10:03:02 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You seem to want to keep connecting two fairly unrelated things. The Packers could have 300 guys hurt. They'd still be fortunate to catch teams when their players are hurt, especially their important ones at important times. The latter is true, or it isn't, independent. Also, I didn't say I was speculating that Ponder would have another "big" game but the Vikings played the Packers close 2 times (3 of his 4) and the Vikings rolled during the hardest finish of a schedule of anyone in playoff contention, and then Ponder went down and this happened. If you don't think that was a break in the Packers' favor, I don't know what to tell you. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 01/09/2013 10:03:37 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/10/2013 @ 06:43:34 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Are the teams that play the packers fortunate when the packers have 15 guys on IR, if some of those names include their workhorse running back and defensive MVP? It's always the packers that are claimed to be fortunate. In other words, did the steelers get lucky or catch an unfortunate break when the Packers lost 2 of their 4 best players in the first half of the Super Bowl? I suppose I'm just trying to be fair about things. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott messed with this at 01/10/2013 6:45:29 am | ||
 | Sarah - 4691 Posts 01/10/2013 @ 05:27:32 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Don't bother. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9563 Posts 01/10/2013 @ 11:05:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 06:43:34 AM Are the teams that play the packers fortunate when the packers have 15 guys on IR, if some of those names include their workhorse running back and defensive MVP? It's always the packers that are claimed to be fortunate. In other words, did the steelers get lucky or catch an unfortunate break when the Packers lost 2 of their 4 best players in the first half of the Super Bowl? I suppose I'm just trying to be fair about things. The Steelers caught a break, though "2 of their best 4" is probably a bit dramatic. The break the teams caught with Grant diminished every week, and wasn't very big to begin with. He was just the last man standing at some point, and then I'm pretty sure you guys cut him at the end of the season. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 01/10/2013 11:07:16 pm | ||
|
| Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 01/11/2013 @ 07:15:06 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I might put this on my fridge! In other news, I'm going tent camping up in Door County this weekend. So like days of old (before football was on TV, which was pretty much never), I'll be huddled around a fire with a little radio (turns out little portable radios are on the endangered species list) hoping to get reception from either Sturgeon Bay or Escanaba, MI, attempting to listen to the Packer game Saturdady night. Hopefully it's a good time. Although it's actually a bit too warm over here for winter camping. 28 degrees and things are frozen. 35-40 degrees and things are just wet. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott edited this at 01/11/2013 7:15:39 am | ||
|
| Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 01/11/2013 @ 07:56:37 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
One thought on the Packers-49ers game: So a lot has been made about the Packers inability to stop the run this year, and for the most part that isn't an inaccurate statement. They currently rank 17th in the league in yards per game allowed. However, for the sake of argument, if you only count the 14 games that the Packers played that didn't involve Adrian Peterson, their league ranking in yards per game drops down to 12th. So at best they are an average to decent run defense. I'm not suggesting that this means Gore is going nowhere, but it does suggest that they might be better prepared to slow down the 49ers run game than some are willing to give them credit for. (That, and they've had 2 straight weeks of practice to stop AP, so Gore should be a cakewalk, right?) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 01/11/2013 @ 01:13:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
They're 14th in rush defense. If you're going to take out Peterson's yards for them you have to take out his yards for the rest of his opponents. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/11/2013 @ 01:26:54 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| That's a good point (although I suppose I was going to total yards allowed, not some fancy equation that puts numbers in context). Although that doesn't change my point all that much either. The point is, the Packers aren't a terrible run defense. They are an average run defense. Although they are the 2nd worst rushing defense left in the playoffs. I was just trying to soften the fall a little bit. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this at 01/11/2013 1:28:21 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 01/11/2013 @ 01:42:47 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
In response to Jeremy's Seattle game comments (since he brought it up): http://www.footballzebras.com/2012/09/30/4597/ |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 01/11/2013 @ 03:11:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
To be fair, it was always your strawman characterization of what I was saying that somehow twisted it into "the other team wouldn't be lucky if Aaron Rodgers got hurt because...Packers".  |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 01/11/2013 @ 03:28:18 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:42:47 PM In response to Jeremy's Seattle game comments (since he brought it up): http://www.footballzebras.com/2012/09/30/4597/ 95% of this article is about screwing up the procedure of the call. The guy that he blames for being woefully no where near being in any position to have any accurate call is the one that got it "right". Hopefully we can avoid going through it all again. However, I disagree with the assessment that "anyone with eyes" could see Jennings "had control first". For 2 reasons a) The definition of control is purposely vague, and these "anyone's" everyone speaks of are putting their own type of "more/better control" spin on it, whether or not they claim that's what they're doing.* b) It's just plain and simply not true in any reasonable sense, and to the extent that it might be true going to HD stills .0004 seconds apart, as we discussed last time, "simultaneous" in that rule simply can't mean "literally at the exact same instant in time." 1)It's meant to be called on the field, by people, thus "indecipherable in real time" is the implied definition. 2) There's essentially no such thing as "simultaneous" if you want to get hyper literal about it, thus "indecipherable in [some granularity] of time" is the implied definition. But again, I've never claimed "they definitely got the call right", just that anyone who thinks the call was 100% dead, and indefensively, wrong, are themselves wrong, or at the very very least have done an awful job making their case. * For instance, you might see things like "Jennings got 2 hands on the ball while Tate only had one" Except no where in the NFL rule book does it say anything about "2 hands" being better, or one hand not being enough. When people make points like this they are, plain and simply, injecting things into the rules that aren't there. (Although to be fair, sometimes it's not so much a point about "they blew the call" but more, "on cosmic level that was an interception that got bogged down in technicalities") Not to mention there doesn't seem to be a great consensus as to what was even the important part of the call. The NFL, among others, seem to think nothing matters until Jennings feet hit. http://nesn.com/2012/09/md-jennings-golden-tate-both-had-possession-of-controversial-packers-seahawks-touchdown-call/ |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 8 times, last at 01/11/2013 5:00:13 pm | ||
|
| Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 01/11/2013 @ 11:20:16 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Simmons |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Alex screwed with this at 01/11/2013 11:20:37 pm | ||
|
| Sarah - So's your face 01/12/2013 @ 10:40:55 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I had to tweet that after I read his article. Hope it comes true today! |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Sarah - So's your face 01/13/2013 @ 12:15:51 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:40:55 AM I had to tweet that after I read his article. Hope it comes true today! Update: It did not. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 01/14/2013 @ 12:58:37 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Points allowed by GB in their last 3 playoff losses: 51 (OT), 37, 45 Good thing they used their entire draft on defense... |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 01/17/2013 @ 10:23:40 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| To be fair (although I'm not claiming it would have changed things), their top 2 draft picks (Nick Perry and Jerel Worthy) were lost for the season with injuries this year, and several other rookies actually had pretty solid years. But for certain something about the defense has to change. Whether it's a scheme thing, whether it's just the current (somewhat young) core of defensive players has to mature, or whether it's a need to go out and find a Cullin Jenkins or a younger Charles Woodson to add via free agency. The defense was fairly solid in 2010, but the last two seasons they have been average at best, and downright terrible when they actually play good teams. |
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....
Bengals 13 @ Texans 19
Sarah
Damn these are some good games, too many tough choices. I reserve the right to change my mind.Jon
A lot of people would like the Texans to be as bad as their record's been lately. I'm not ready to knock them down that far. They may not be the superpower they looked like, but they should be able to take care of Cincinnati.