NFL 2015 Season Week 10 Picks

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 11/12/2015 @ 12:18:51 PM
Red versus Green.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/12/2015 @ 01:57:02 PM
I can't get CBS on my stupid HD antenna, so I can't even watch the game I'm required to make picks for. How am I going to know what happens?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/12/2015 @ 02:09:21 PM
It's NFLN only now (actually last week) anyway.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 11/16/2015 @ 07:50:18 AM
My picks are about as good as the Packers right now. Only 2 correct picks this week? Yikes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/16/2015 @ 09:39:15 AM
I don't know what was crazier. That the Packers lost to the Lions at home, that they lost even though the Lions gift wrapped about 12 chances to hang around, or that the shanking of a game winning attempt you have because of an onside kick because of a failed 2 point that would have tied it if not 2 XP misses was potentially the 3rd craziest ending yesterday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/16/2015 @ 10:39:01 AM
After the Packers missed the 2-pt conversion, I figured it was over and also confused myself somehow thinking that the Lions were taking over at the 2 yard line. When I walked back in to the living room and I see the Packers jumping on a loose ball, my first reaction was "why are the lions running a play?" And then I saw that Megatron apparently Bosticked the on side kick, even if his blunder wasn't a blown assignment. In the past, it is easy to look at past Packers offense and scratch your head as to how the Rodgers seems to always be throwing to wide open receivers take it for granted or chalk it up to the NFL's emphasis on passing. That hasn't been the case this year. It's easy to take something like that for granted. I think the biggest reason is that the Packers don't have that one guy that demands attention from opposing defenses. One thing Nelson did, other than be really good, was create mismatches for other receivers. What used to be the strength of their offense (their deep and talented WR corps) has now become one of the weakest units in the league. There are other issues too, but this is a glaring one that might be hard to fix. Ty Montgomery supposedly possesses some ability to be a deep threat, but he's a rookie and he's been hurt. If he does return soon and does provide that, perhaps that will turn things around. But that might be asking a lot. Either way, it's hard to see Super Bowl on the horizon for this team in it's current form.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 11/16/2015 10:39:21 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/16/2015 @ 03:08:56 PM
It turns out that the last second failed FG attempt may have been blocked by the holder. I'd say all of the Lions' attempts to lose the game might be trumped by the Packers essentially blocking their own game winning field goal.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 11/16/2015 @ 03:33:11 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 07:50:18 AM My picks are about as good as the Packers right now. Only 2 correct picks this week? Yikes. At one point I had the trophy at like 4-5. Just one of those weeks.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/16/2015 @ 03:49:04 PM
As for the Packers woes, it could be Jordy, but there was also the 6 and 0 start. (Though some might argue that was a shaky 6 and 0, but not every game is going to be a 30 point blowout.) You're just a very as-our-qb-goes-so-we-go team. Of course you could argue, "isn't everyone?" but I think the answer to that is "not exactly". Obviously QB is a vital position, but sometimes all time great QBs mask what is, in fact, a really mediocre team. You have situations like the Colts where they go from Superbowl quality, to literally the worst team in the league, to strong playoff team, due to the QB position. Where as there are teams nipping .500 and maybe a wildcard for stretches that might actually be a better roster, they just don't have the QB. Obviously whomever is starting for them is probably better, but they aren't busted by the position to the same extent. As, ungloaty as I can make this sound, perhaps what we're really "seeing" here is that the Packers are just a really so so team heretofore masked by the best QB in the game. No one noticed because his one off "bad" games were quickly forgotten, but then, perhaps even coincidentally (the dice are bound to come up snake eyes a few times in a row once in a while), 3 games in a row where he's anything less than Superman and people are trying to figure out what "happened", without considering "maybe nothing, Aaron is just generally *that* good."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 11/17/2015 @ 08:33:01 AM
The 6-0 start wasn't nothing, but even after starting 6-0, they were like 27th in the league in passing offense. It's possible that this is a coincidental stretch, and it's possible that Aaron Rodgers has just been a bit off the last few weeks, and it's possible (and not that unlikely), that the Packers are been greatly aided by having a really good QB that makes them look better than they really are (the Barry Sanders effect). Rodgers has missed on a number of seemingly easy deep fades in recent weeks. The few times that a receiver had separation and gotten beyond a defender has resulted in overthrown balls. That being said, the Packers are being defended almost exclusively with man to man coverage in the last few games. In past years, teams have had be much more balanced in zone/man coverage because of how the offense was able to adjust. Generally, the seemingly endless supply of wide open receivers was often a result of receivers finding space after Rodgers extended the play. Then, when teams would feel the need to go strictly man-to-man, they had at least one receiver (Nelson) who could beat most DBs in an footrace. And if that wasn't the case, Nelson would get double teamed, which would open up a mismatch Cobb or a running back. Without Nelson, playing Cobb out of the backfield has had almost no effect. I don't think this is hyperbole or only seeing things a certain way from my perspective (although it's possible that it could be). The Packers have generally had one of most feared passing offenses in the league since about 2011, and their receiving corps often would be among the league leaders in YACs. I'm not saying that Nelson is so good that any team would struggle without him. However, the makeup of the Packers receiving corps is all out of wack because of he they don't have with him out. It's like this. The system depends on Receiver 1 being able to do A, Receiver 2 being able to do B, and Receiver 3 being able to do C, but Receivers 2 and 3's ability to do B and C depends in large part on Receiver 1's ability to do A. You might be right about them being a "so-so" team, and yes, a good quarterback can make an average team better than they otherwise would be. But Rodgers has been a little worse than "less than Superman" in the last few weeks. Against Denver and Carolina he could do very little more than nothing. If those games could be explained away by being against undefeated teams on the road, the Detroit game may have confirmed fears that something just isn't right. And part of it might be on him, but I think a large part of it is that the guys on the other end are simply not good enough to do what they need to do without the presence of a big play receiver like Nelson. note: I don't want it to come across that I'm being an Aaron Rodgers apologist. He does not seem to be playing to the same level has he has even last year. He's missing throws, he isn't running as often as he would in the past. But there are other factors that might be contributing to his seemingly lackluster performances lately.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 11/17/2015 8:36:25 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 11/17/2015 @ 08:51:25 AM
On the other hand, it's hard to figure out how the Packers could target Davante Adams 22 times and Cobb only 10 times in a game when Rodgers threw the ball 60 times. Perhaps their gameplan is just bad. Perhaps McCarthy is just that brilliant of a play caller that the first year that he gives up those duties the Packers offense goes in the crapper. Frankly, aside from some anecdotal evidence of McCarthy the buffoon, most people looking at his offenses critically give him extremely high marks as a creative play caller. Of course, when things are going bad, everything looks like the problem. The field goal wasn't blocked by the holder as originally rumored. Masthe thinks that Crosby may have essentially taken a divot behind the football which resulted in striking the ball high, much like a golfer who hits behind the ball. That doesn't make it better, but maybe less incompetent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 11/17/2015 @ 01:06:52 PM
The simplify version is both offensive and defensive lines are playing quite badly, Rodgers is playing average instead of MVP (partially related to point 1, has also made bad throws, and is getting too old to run a lot while also taking 20 hits a game), the receivers aren't really getting open a ton, and the trust/esp is not there between Rodgers and I would say any of the receivers. The last 2 points are where Nelson makes a huge difference. On so many of his catches he wasn't really "open", but he and Rodgers were so on the same page that it didn't matter. And it felt like a lot of those came on 3rd downs, but I can't find that data right now, if it's even publicly available. He did have 71 first downs last year on all downs (huh, so did Cobb, found Nelson's page first then this) http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-team-stats?season=2014&seasonType=1&category=OFFENSE&type=1 The leader this year is Cobb, on pace for 46. http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers-team-stats		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/17/2015 @ 02:18:58 PM
Jordy made the other receivers better. Randall Cobb is a really good playmaker, and he generally has good hands. But Jordy could make those contested catches and thus took all sort of pressure off of guys like Cobb. Cobb is 5'10 inches 190 pounds, he isn't going to out-physical a db on a consistent basis like the 6-3 220 pound Nelson could.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.