NFL 2015 Season Week 3 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Commanders 21 @ Giants 32 Final Thu, 9/24/15 7:25pm
|
Giants
 |
Giants
|
Giants
|
Giants
|
||||
| Bengals 28 @ Ravens 24 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Ravens
 |
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
||||
| Steelers 12 @ Rams 6 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Steelers
 |
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
Steelers
|
||||
| Colts 35 @ Titans 33 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Colts
 |
Colts
|
Colts
|
Titans
 |
||||
| Eagles 24 @ Jets 17 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Jets
 |
Eagles
 |
Jets
|
Jets
|
||||
| Jaguars 17 @ Patriots 51 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Chargers 14 @ Vikings 31 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
||||
| Buccaneers 9 @ Texans 19 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Texans
 |
Texans
|
Texans
|
Texans
|
||||
| Falcons 39 @ Cowboys 28 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Falcons
 |
Cowboys
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Raiders 27 @ Browns 20 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Browns
 |
Raiders
 |
Browns
|
Browns
|
||||
| Saints 22 @ Panthers 27 Final Sun, 9/27/15 12:00pm
|
Panthers
 |
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
Panthers
|
||||
| 49ers 7 @ Cardinals 47 Final Sun, 9/27/15 3:05pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
||||
| Bills 41 @ Dolphins 14 Final Sun, 9/27/15 3:25pm
|
Bills
 |
Dolphins
 |
Bills
|
Bills
|
||||
| Bears 0 @ Seahawks 26 Final Sun, 9/27/15 3:25pm
|
Seahawks
 |
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
Seahawks
|
||||
| Broncos 24 @ Lions 12 Final Sun, 9/27/15 7:30pm
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| Chiefs 28 @ Packers 38 Final Mon, 9/28/15 7:30pm
|
Packers
 |
Chiefs
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Week Record | 13 - 3 0.812  | 13 - 3 0.812 | 14 - 2 0.875  | 13 - 3 0.812 | ||||
| Season Record | 32 - 16 0.667 | 29 - 19 0.604 | 30 - 18 0.625 | 26 - 22 0.542 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 1533 - 914 0.626 | 1473 - 974 0.602 | 1527 - 920 0.624 | 1535 - 912 0.627 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3376 - 1964 0.632 | 3291 - 2049 0.616 | 3398 - 1942 0.636 | 3292 - 2048 0.617 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 2210 - 1304 0.629 | 2084 - 1430 0.593 | 2197 - 1317 0.625 | 2194 - 1320 0.624 |
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Lions
Packers
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 27 - 21 0.562 |
| Lifetime: | 1546 - 893 0.634 |
Bengals
Rams
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 28 - 20 0.583 |
| Lifetime: | 1365 - 814 0.626 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Lifetime: | 1227 - 796 0.607 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 14 - 2 0.875 |
| Season: | 33 - 14 0.702 |
| Lifetime: | 619 - 387 0.615 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 31 - 16 0.660 |
| Lifetime: | 441 - 244 0.644 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Raiders
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 14 - 2 0.875 |
| Season: | 20 - 12 0.625 |
| Lifetime: | 569 - 351 0.619 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Chiefs
| Week: | 13 - 3 0.812 |
| Season: | 28 - 20 0.583 |
| Lifetime: | 941 - 595 0.613 |
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Lifetime: | 764 - 446 0.631 |
Ravens
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 29 - 19 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 981 - 507 0.659 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 14 - 2 0.875 |
| Season: | 32 - 16 0.667 |
| Lifetime: | 893 - 479 0.651 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Dolphins
Seahawks
Broncos
Chiefs
| Week: | 11 - 5 0.688 |
| Season: | 24 - 24 0.500 |
| Lifetime: | 789 - 445 0.639 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Vikings
Texans
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 13 - 2 0.867 |
| Season: | 29 - 18 0.617 |
| Lifetime: | 313 - 180 0.635 |
Bengals
Steelers
Titans
Eagles
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Cowboys
Raiders
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 28 - 20 0.583 |
| Lifetime: | 228 - 127 0.642 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 28 - 20 0.583 |
| Lifetime: | 204 - 109 0.652 |
Bengals
Steelers
Colts
Jets
Patriots
Chargers
Buccaneers
Falcons
Browns
Panthers
Cardinals
Bills
Seahawks
Broncos
Packers
| Week: | 12 - 4 0.750 |
| Season: | 26 - 21 0.553 |
| Lifetime: | 26 - 21 0.553 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
 | Chargers 14 @ Vikings 31 | |
 | SarahVikings did a complete 180 for week 2, Chargers aren't great, advantage Minnesota. |
 | JonI dunno, Vikings are the home team. |
| Broncos 24 @ Lions 12 |  |
| SarahSomeone convince me Peyton Manning still has it. Forget the stats and wins I need something intangible. Since he keeps proving me wrong, I'll go with the Broncos for some reason. |
| JonThe Lions are just the Lions. |
| Chiefs 28 @ Packers 38 | |
| SarahAndy Reid vs Mike McCarthy, oh goody, ineptitude reigns supreme. Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance. |
| JonKansas City trying to break up the perfect season. |
  | Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/22/2015 @ 12:38:57 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| Interesting stat about the Chiefs-Packers game: the Packers have never beaten the Chiefs in Green Bay. Like, ever. And the Packers have only beaten the Chiefs once since 1987. I'm sure that will be a factor. |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
  | Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/22/2015 @ 02:40:12 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
>Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance. That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while. One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB. |
Yours:
Total:  Rated 1 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this at 09/22/2015 2:55:14 pm | ||
 | Sarah - So's your face 09/22/2015 @ 03:35:02 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:40:12 PM >Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as Rodgers is on the field, they've got a good chance. That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while. One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB. Are you picking a fight with me?  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/23/2015 @ 12:26:03 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
 I did forget the  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this at 09/23/2015 12:26:16 am | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/23/2015 @ 08:44:56 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| I'm waiting for a certain someone's head to explode at the news that Kam Chancellor might return exactly 1 week after the Seahawks played the Packers. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/23/2015 @ 08:50:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Sarah Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:35:02 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:40:12 PM >Packers' injuries keep mounting but as long as That's because Ted Thompson is so good at finding talent everywhere! Or we just pretend that and the reality is any random replacement level NFL level talents look good with a top QB who has actually been masking a fairly mediocre team for a while. One or the other. It must be the former, because of course there's no precedent for a team going from Superbowl competitor to terrible, and then back, based on the QB. Are you picking a fight with me? Sarah, I fixed it for you. |
Yours:
Total: Rated 1 times. |
|
| Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 09/23/2015 8:52:21 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/23/2015 @ 09:38:51 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
That, or the potential number one pick fell in his lap. There was no transition at all. Not even a hint of it at the time, just the fact that football players don't play forever. They chose Favre over Rodgers many many times, including that last season. Reportedly it wasn't until that final season, where they agreed to let Favre come back after much hemming and hawing, only to be followed up by him have 57th thoughts and pulling back again weeks shy of the season that they FINALLY decided it was time. They chose Favre every time, right up until the point where it was almost impossible to do so, because you can't not know about your QB within a stone's throw of the season. Even if you wanted to give credit to him for pulling the trigger on drafting him, that's one good move, that potentially masks every other one, and arguably a very shoddy job at managing his cap masquerading as "doing it right", because he can almost never afford a free agent if he wanted to (but somehow we ignore that he's quick to whenever they can actually afford to squeeze a FA in-between giving every DB he's ever drafted 9 million per season and Bubba Franks being paid about 20 times too much.) |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy screwed with this 7 times, last at 09/23/2015 9:57:46 am | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/23/2015 @ 09:39:14 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:44:56 AM I'm waiting for a certain someone's head to explode at the news that Kam Chancellor might return exactly 1 week after the Seahawks played the Packers. That was always a given. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 09/23/2015 @ 11:15:32 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:38:51 AM That, or the potential number one pick fell in his lap. There was no transition at all. Not even a hint of it at the time, just the fact that football players don't play forever. They chose Favre over Rodgers many many times, including that last season. Reportedly it wasn't until that final season, where they agreed to let Favre come back after much hemming and hawing, only to be followed up by him have 57th thoughts and pulling back again weeks shy of the season that they FINALLY decided it was time. They chose Favre every time, right up until the point where it was almost impossible to do so, because you can't not know about your QB within a stone's throw of the season. Even if you wanted to give credit to him for pulling the trigger on drafting him, that's one good move, that potentially masks every other one, and arguably a very shoddy job at managing his cap masquerading as "doing it right", because he can almost never afford a free agent if he wanted to (but somehow we ignore that he's quick to whenever they can actually afford to squeeze a FA in-between giving every DB he's ever drafted 9 million per season and Bubba Franks being paid about 20 times too much.)  |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 09/29/2015 @ 09:58:00 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| For what it's worth, the Packers had one of those "why didn't they at least take a measurement on a really really close first down on a 4th down play" towards the end of the game last night. I don't know that it wasn't a first down, and the Packers didn't have any timeouts with which to challenge it, but the announcers seemed puzzled about not only the spot but the lack of measurement as the spot appeared short of--or, generously, right at--the yellow line. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/29/2015 @ 11:55:00 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
| Did the Chiefs run a play before anyone signaled anything which wouldn't have given you a chance to challenge if you could have because no one knew what the situation was? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 09/29/2015 @ 01:23:43 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
| There was a hurt Packer player which the refs blew the whistle for an it looked like most players and coaches didn't know why the whistle was blown. Does that count? Also it wasn't "really really close", he was short by a full yard (if the spot would have been where it was supposed to be). |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Alex messed with this 2 times, last at 09/29/2015 1:24:28 pm | ||
|
| Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 09/29/2015 @ 02:39:11 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
It doesn't count, Alex. Or at least the 17 other gifts that the Packers got from the refs all night offset any suspected questionable calls that may have hurt the Packers (that is, only if you are wearing rose-colored Packer glasses). Also, I think the Chiefs may have had an injured player, so obviously the outcome of the game was already tilted in the Packers favor, because football. The Chiefs were in hurry up mode and the only reason they didn't run a play in the manner described in Jeremy's comment is likely because of the whistle for the injured Packer, and because it was a 17--err, 16--yard gain and required 22 players get back to the line of scrimmage. But the fact that delay is all the more reason why it's questionable that was no measurement. It's one thing to be in hurry up mode and have the offense get to the line and snap the ball right away to a) not lose clock time, or b) prevent the opposition from challenging; I'd say that happens fairly often. It seems worse, given how the two events have been described, to have a bad spot that still appears to be close at best and behind the line at worst and have no measurement when there is a whistle blown and time for the refs to talk about it compared to a similar situation with a winding clock inside of 3 minutes with a frantic offense trying desperately to get the next snap off as soon as possible. And regarding my "really really close" choice of words, it was a bone thrown because I didn't have a replay in front of me. My first thoughts at the time was "how did they spot the ball at the first down line when his body never got to the line", but I didn't want to seem like I was totally claiming we got hugely screwed. That and the spot (bad as it may have been) probably was "really really close", but it was still short of the yellow line, which I know isn't official, but is generally a good indicator of what's close and what isn't, which likely should have prompted a measurement. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 09/29/2015 2:44:26 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 09/29/2015 @ 03:39:03 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
Kettle, meet pot. Pot, kettle. There are of course never any legitimate differences in the situations, only tinted glasses. Bad spots happen all the time, that isn't the quibble here. In the Viking game the ball WAS spotted behind the line of gain, then, the Lions just ran a play before anyone figured out anything. So, that too is different, and no, it's not worse that the refs communicated, even if they were wrong on the spot. Refs can stop the game any time, so that's a moot point who is or isn't in hurry up, at best. The fact that the play in the Viking game should have been, at worst, a measurement, was never the crux of the matter there. Take the play as you described and say the refs *actually spotted the ball* where you both say it should have been, a fan-yard short of the line of gain, now pretend the Chiefs just kept going, based on some weird miscommunication or something inexplicable between the marking the play and spotting the ball, and to put the cherry on the top, there wasn't even an outwardly sign of the miscommunication/mistep that awarded the first down, before anyone knew anything it was in the books, and no one said anything about the fact that they turned it over on downs 2 plays ago. It wasn't a "bad spot" issue. Surely, even if we could haggle over if the Viking play "really" played out that way or not, you can see how these two situations are actually different situations, right? Also, small point, but are you saying that 17 breaks the Packers got from the refs wouldn't be a relevent point to make if they got one bad one? |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 4 times, last at 09/29/2015 6:53:24 pm | ||
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....
Commanders 21 @ Giants 32
Sarah
Eli is bound to turn this team around at some point. Maybe this week. If they haven't hit an all time low, then they don't make the playoffs. 0-2 is fairly low, especially considering how they've lost.Jon
Washington is better, I guess. Than they were. I realized that if this is the case, I shouldn't be surprised since they have a good GM now, according to an article I read a few months back. This Thursday night football is needy though. Gotta do the picks, gotta set the lineups. I don't need this in my week. In all honesty, I don't hate it as much as I like to say I do, but boy it's annoying. Needy.