NFL 2015 Season Week 6 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.
 |  |  |  | |||||
| Falcons 21 @ Saints 31 Final Thu, 10/15/15 7:25pm
|
Falcons
 |
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
Falcons
|
||||
| Dolphins 38 @ Titans 10 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Titans
 |
Titans
|
Dolphins
 |
Dolphins
|
||||
| Bears 34 @ Lions 37 final overtime Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Lions
 |
Bears
 |
Bears
|
Bears
|
||||
| Commanders 20 @ Jets 34 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Jets
 |
Jets
|
Jets
|
Jets
|
||||
| Cardinals 13 @ Steelers 25 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Cardinals
 |
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
Cardinals
|
||||
| Chiefs 10 @ Vikings 16 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Vikings
 |
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
Vikings
|
||||
| Broncos 26 @ Browns 23 final overtime Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Broncos
 |
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
Broncos
|
||||
| Texans 31 @ Jaguars 20 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Jaguars
 |
Texans
 |
Jaguars
|
Jaguars
|
||||
| Bengals 34 @ Bills 21 Final Sun, 10/18/15 12:00pm
|
Bengals
 |
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
Bengals
|
||||
| Panthers 27 @ Seahawks 23 Final Sun, 10/18/15 3:05pm
|
Seahawks
 |
Panthers
 |
Seahawks
|
Panthers
|
||||
| Ravens 20 @ 49ers 25 Final Sun, 10/18/15 3:25pm
|
Ravens
 |
49ers
 |
49ers
|
Ravens
|
||||
| Chargers 20 @ Packers 27 Final Sun, 10/18/15 3:25pm
|
Packers
 |
Chargers
 |
Packers
|
Packers
|
||||
| Patriots 34 @ Colts 27 Final Sun, 10/18/15 7:30pm
|
Patriots
 |
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
Patriots
|
||||
| Giants 7 @ Eagles 27 Final Mon, 10/19/15 7:30pm
|
Giants
 |
Eagles
 |
Giants
|
Giants
|
||||
| Week Record | 7 - 7 0.500  | 9 - 5 0.643  | 8 - 6 0.571 | 8 - 6 0.571 | ||||
| Season Record | 56 - 35 0.615 | 54 - 37 0.593 | 57 - 34 0.626 | 51 - 40 0.560 | ||||
| Scotttime Record | 1557 - 933 0.625 | 1498 - 992 0.602 | 1554 - 936 0.624 | 1560 - 930 0.626 | ||||
| No-Pack-Vike Record | 3376 - 1964 0.632 | 3291 - 2049 0.616 | 3398 - 1942 0.636 | 3292 - 2048 0.617 | ||||
| Lifetime Record | 2234 - 1323 0.628 | 2109 - 1448 0.593 | 2224 - 1333 0.625 | 2219 - 1338 0.624 |
Titans
Bears
Jets
Steelers
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
49ers
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 10 - 4 0.714 |
| Season: | 57 - 34 0.626 |
| Lifetime: | 1576 - 906 0.635 |
Titans
Lions
Commanders
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Seahawks
Ravens
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 53 - 38 0.582 |
| Lifetime: | 1390 - 832 0.626 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Seahawks
49ers
Packers
Colts
Eagles
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 58 - 32 0.644 |
| Lifetime: | 644 - 405 0.614 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Seahawks
Ravens
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 49 - 26 0.653 |
| Lifetime: | 598 - 365 0.621 |
Titans
Bears
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
Ravens
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 56 - 35 0.615 |
| Lifetime: | 969 - 610 0.614 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Browns
Texans
Bengals
Panthers
Ravens
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 21 - 9 0.700 |
| Lifetime: | 773 - 451 0.631 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Panthers
49ers
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 10 - 4 0.714 |
| Season: | 55 - 36 0.604 |
| Lifetime: | 1007 - 524 0.658 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Seahawks
49ers
Packers
Patriots
Eagles
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 61 - 30 0.670 |
| Lifetime: | 922 - 493 0.652 |
Titans
Bears
Jets
Steelers
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Panthers
Ravens
Packers
Colts
Giants
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 49 - 41 0.544 |
| Lifetime: | 814 - 462 0.638 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Panthers
Ravens
Packers
Patriots
Giants
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 62 - 28 0.689 |
| Lifetime: | 346 - 190 0.645 |
Dolphins
Lions
Commanders
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Jaguars
Bengals
Panthers
49ers
Packers
Patriots
Giants
| Week: | 9 - 5 0.643 |
| Season: | 57 - 34 0.626 |
| Lifetime: | 257 - 141 0.646 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Seahawks
Ravens
Packers
Colts
Giants
| Week: | 7 - 7 0.500 |
| Season: | 57 - 34 0.626 |
| Lifetime: | 233 - 123 0.654 |
Titans
Lions
Jets
Cardinals
Vikings
Broncos
Texans
Bengals
Panthers
Ravens
Packers
Colts
Giants
| Week: | 8 - 6 0.571 |
| Season: | 56 - 34 0.622 |
| Lifetime: | 56 - 34 0.622 |
Create an Account or Login to make your own picks!
 | Chiefs 10 @ Vikings 16 | |
 | SarahI am terrible at picks. Maybe research would help? |
 | JonSeems like it's been two weeks since the Vikings played. |
| Chargers 20 @ Packers 27 | |
| SarahLast week the defense really helped out the offense. Feel like they kind of owe them the D was so good. Rodgers is a good learner from his mistakes and hates mistakes so it would suck to be a part of the Chargers D this week. |
| JonCool QBs wear bolo ties. |
| Patriots 34 @ Colts 27 |  |
| SarahDeflategate Bowl. This will be a fun one to watch. If you like being tortured by hearing about this Brady cheating scandal over and over again. Frickin' guy got away with it too. |
| JonPatriots like scoring almost as much as they like cheating. |
| Giants 7 @ Eagles 27 | |
| SarahOooo another NFC East showdown in primetime! My heart beats with giddy anticipation. |
| JonEli Manning is having a good year. |
  | Sarah - How do you use these things? 10/15/2015 @ 04:20:23 PM |
 |
|---|---|---|
| Pick it real good. |
Yours:
 
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Scott - 6225 Posts 10/19/2015 @ 10:17:36 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/another-week--another-ridiculous-question-about-what-exactly-is-a-catch-185348926.html Here's the video of that Lions Touchdown to Golden Tate that sparked the supposed controversy about what is and isn't a catch. While I was frustrated with the way the "going to the ground" rule was interpreted back when it was first happening (like 8 years ago), it actually seems that it is being applied quite consistently throughout the league. That is to say, if people are getting super frustrated by way all these calls are going, they probably are only looking at a single instance and assuming they're getting screwed and not the body of examples of how it is being ruled overall. In Tate's case, he was at no point "going to the ground". That is the cog that makes that entire rule applicable. If the player is not falling to the ground while making the catch, it is a catch. Since it happened in the end zone, the moment he gets two feet down and crosses the goal line (which he did) the play is over and anything that happens after that point is after the whistle. It would be different if the contact that happened caused him to start "going to the ground" before he lost control, but he really was fully upright until after the ball came loose. So, in my opinion, the "controversy" surrounding this rule does not seem all that controversial, and frankly I think it is better than the alternative than having refs decide whether a player was "sort of falling" or "would have made the catch anyway" or whatever interpretations could be made about a player making a catch while falling to the ground. The case with Golden Tate's catch yesterday isn't even in this conversation because at no point during his catch was he going to the ground. I feel that the people who are trying to gin up controversy over every close call like this are probably not really paying attention. Regarding the "not paying attention", exhibit A from the linked article: This is a complete reversal of last week's touchdown-turned-incompletion by Atlanta's Devonta Freeman. NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino, in attempting to explain the call, told NFL Media that Tate "had demonstrated possession. He had become a runner, and he had crossed the plane of the goal line." And yet, that's exactly what Freeman did last week, but his catch was ruled an incompletion because he lost the ball after crossing the goal line. You make the call: The most glaring mistake with this person's analysis of the two situations: Tate was not going to the ground thus the rule that was applied to Devonta Freeman's catch didn't apply to Tate. In other words, Jay Busbee, who is being paid to study the film and give accurate, albeit opinionated, information, sounds more like your annoying uncle on the couch just shouting "THAT'S HOW THEY ALWAYS CALL IT!" He either failed to graps the actual and apparent difference in the two plays, who he simply has no idea that the ruling in Freeman's case is based on a rule that is specifically applied to players who are going to the ground. Frankly, for all the talk about how the NFL rulebook is so complicated, this one couldn't be spelled out more clearly that there is a built in test for how to judge a catch like this. Was the player going to the gound?: no? then use this rule; Yes? then use a different rule. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this at 10/19/2015 10:37:57 am | ||
  | Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 10/19/2015 @ 12:41:30 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I was gearing up for another nutcan argument with Scott, but I agree. Certainly in-so-far-as-much as the "controversy" over "this going to the ground rule seems so inconsistent!!!" freakout, because the going to the ground rule simply isn't applicable. I think you can make a solid argument that the 2 deciseconds he had the ball isn't enough to qualify as a completion, but the play is over the nano second he has possession. Either way that's all this call is about. This play has nothing to do with almost anything else being brought up. (Such as the Megatron catch which is the poster boy of "Huh?!?" non-catches even though it was an open and shut application of the rules. So much so that I called it live.) He wasn't going to the ground until after possession was established. "Catch, foot, contact, foot" and "catch, foot, foot, contact" are different flow charts. In this case he was standing pretty solidly and only goes to the ground because he chases the ball after the fact. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 10/19/2015 12:45:32 pm | ||
|
| Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/19/2015 @ 12:50:21 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
For whatever it's worth, Mike Pereira makes no mention of the ground or whatever, and is only addressing if he has it long enough or does enough to establish he's a runner. It's the announcers that start talking about going to the ground, and then immediately return to it. Frankly I think the announcers need education on this matter, because I think they're they ones confusing the fans. (That or on any catch-or-not the in house ref should explicitly address the rules in play. In this case Pereira could have explicitly said "going to the ground probably won't come into play here because he wasn't going to the ground for the catch itself.) It's no wonder people are confused when the people on the TV are just plain wrong on almost every single edge case, then don't understand why they were wrong. I also don't know what people think the solution is. The NFL has "too many rules!!" Well, maybe, but is this really an area where it's an amount-of-rules thing? The going to the ground thing was supposed to take what was subjective and make it more objective. Yes, it may undo things we feel should be catches, but at least then that's the rule for everyone. (Not that there's no room for subjectivity left) Where is this gold standard simple rule that would let the refs trivially determine if a catch in any scenario was a catch or not? I think people are being really unfair here. Especially since part of the issue was trying to add in people's whims in the first place. Take the "the ball can hit the ground if you controlled it first and maintained it" rule. That was added by popular demand, even though the way it was was an objective standard where, again, yes, it occasionally took away something we felt "deserved to be" a catch, but was much much easier to officiate the way it was. People seem to just want this magical system of "when we all feel like it was a catch is should count except that can't be codified in anything that can't be explained to a 10 year old in 15 minutes, and needs to be universally objective so no two plays we feel were the same [even though they often aren't] are ever called differently." |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy edited this 6 times, last at 10/19/2015 1:08:15 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/19/2015 @ 01:12:52 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
What the Calvin Johnson play (and the Dez Bryant play, and probably a few other close examples) indicates is that regardless if whether what you are doing after you think it was a catch is an "extra move" of some kind, if you are going to the ground you have to take care of the football no matter what up until and through the point where you are a) no longer falling, or b) have established yourself as a runner. Calvin Johnson was in all intents and purposes "done" making the catch (or so he thought) and looked like he was bracing himself with the ball. Dez was falling and lunging for the end zone, but had yet to demonstrate that he was anything but a receiver who was still falling to the ground. If there are "exceptions" to this rule (and they can hardly really be called exceptions) are the plays where a receiver might be falling, but then after making the catch, makes an obvious move of some sort that is totally independent of when they are falling, or that the receiver could have prevented the fall if they hadn't performed that move. Dean Blandino showed a different example of Dez that was ruled a catch that was a stark contrast to the non-catch in the NFC championship game, even though in both plays Dez was technically going to the ground. The example that was ruled a catch, Dez was falling but took a couple of leaping steps, crossed the goalline and then lost the football. In the NFC championship game, he caught the ball while falling and in pretty much the same motion leaned toward the endzone before losing the football. I think the announcers are trying to please everyone, including those that don't know the rules. If the announcers can make the rule seem more confusing than it is, it makes those that don't care to understand the rule to begin with happy--it validates their ignorance. Because, frankly, I think this rule couldn't be more straightforward. And for those that make the case that "when a regular fan looks at a replay of a close catch, they have no idea what the refs are going to say and thus the rule is too complicated" I have a few remarks about that. First, you could say that for any play. Does the average fan really know exactly what constitutes holding by an offensive lineman? Sometimes it seems obvious and it isn't called, sometimes it looks very clean and it's called. Second, even though these catches are often reviewed via replay challenges or reviews, it is still human beings making the determination. Just because the in-booth ref interprets the play one way doesn't mean that the guy looking at the replay on the doesn't interpret it slightly differently. And even to that argument, the calls in these cases do indeed seem to be ruled in a pretty consistent manner. For someone to complain that the "going to the ground" rule is confusing is an indication that they either a) don't really watch that much football, b) don't know/don't care what the rule is, c) are actively trying to not understand the rule as it is written, or d) are actively trying to advocate for the confusion. I think the writer of article I linked to above falls into category C or D. Here's my twitter conversation with him: me: D Freeman was falling down on his catch. Tate didn't fall until after the ball was gone. Different rule if going to the gournd @jaybusbee: We've been told for years that all the player has to do is break the plan. What happens after shouldn't matter, right? me: but what happens before he breaks the plane matters too, like has he actually made the catch yet. If he is going to the ground, he has to fulfill that rule before the "breaking the plan" rule applies, because he technically doesn't have possession until he fulfills the first rule. Since Tate never went to the ground, this rule isn't even in the conversation. For a paid NFL commentator to further this narrative about the confusing "going to the ground" rule using the Tate catch as his example is a strong indication that he is actively trying to continue that narrative. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
 | Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 10/19/2015 @ 01:32:15 PM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I think one could argue that the rule punishes plays, like Dez's in the Packer game, where the player has the wherewithal and the athleticism to do it all in one motion. Had the goalline not been there he likely would not have been doing that so ipso facto he meant to do it, which is is a conscious move. There's some subjectivity and room for debate here, but it still seems to too often boil down to when certain catch rules apply *at all* or not, which to me seems straight forward enough that the announcers should know by now. But again here, what makes this rule "confusing" is trying to appease people. This rule would be much simpler to officiate if what it was was "you have to maintain control, period." The problem is we want those times where a guy catches himself from falling for 3 stumbling steps before eating shit and dropping the ball to be called a catch. So then what happens at 2, 1, or none? How much of a reach does it take to display intention? We get so caught up in "what would happen if someone lost the Super Bowl because a player stumbled 50 steps before falling down field and dropped the ball?" we ignore the much greater and frequent implications of doing it the other way. Here would be a simpler rule (still riddled with what-ifs, but simpler). Whistles stop the defenders as normal. In order to be a catch you have to standup holding the ball and hold it there for 1 Mississippi. Carrying the ball back to the huddle counts. If at any point the ball hits the ground it's not a catch. If you're going to the ground (or even not) be careful, and if you're not careful, then too bad. (We could even probably use high precision tracking tools to determine the elevation of the ball in this day and age. Though that's neither here nor there.) The problem is people would hate that rule, because we WANT 234908 exceptions to such a rule, we just want those exceptions without creating any illdefined edge cases. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Jeremy messed with this 11 times, last at 10/19/2015 1:53:40 pm | ||
|
| Scott - 6225 Posts 10/20/2015 @ 09:15:39 AM |
|
|---|---|---|
|
I can see that argument about punishing plays like Dez's, but at the same time you assume the risk of not completing the catch. Just because a player has the awareness to try and make something happen doesn't mean that he is immune from the consequence of not fully executing the catch in the attempt to make said play. In fact, in some ways it might suggest a lack of awareness. Sure, he knows he's right at the goalline, but in making that extra move (which still was little short of falling slightly differently than straight down) he forgot that he still has to maintain control of the ball.* It's a little bit like a receiver who looks up field before making the catch and then dropping the pass, or a running back trying to lunge forward for an extra yard and then having the ball knocked out. All plays are players not completing the main objective before trying something else. So instead of characterizing it as "punishing" a player like Dez and the extra play he's trying to make, it might be more appropriate to say it adds an extra element of risk for a player who is going to the ground when making a catch--you assume the risk that the ball could come loose and the pass will be incomplete, and anything you try to do before the catch/fall has been completed is subject to that risk. *I don't have the video in front of me, but the play that Dean Blandino contrasted to the Dez non-catch in the NFCC Game was another Dez catch/touchdown where he was indeed going to the ground, but in doing so he took 2 or 3 additional lunges that were clearly independent of the original going to the ground circumstances, and if I remember correctly, he actually transferred the ball from one hand to the other in the process. On that play, the ball came loose after he finally came crashing to the ground, but not before he more clearly established himself as a runner and no longer "in the process of making the catch". It might be a fine line, but it seems like a boldly colored fine line. The rule is probably the best attempt to keep things as consistent as possible, and it has been ruled quite consistently, despite what fans and pundits wants everyone to believe. And it's been around long enough now that players have to know the risks they assume when making a catch involves diving, falling, or in general going to the ground. And fans have to generally stop complaining about things they clearly know very little about. |
Yours:
Rated 0 times. |
|
| Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 10/20/2015 9:17:38 am | ||
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....
Falcons 21 @ Saints 31
Sarah
Gotta go with the undefeated team which is coincidentally not the saints.Jon
New Orleans is done. Or they might not be. Blah, Thursday games.