NFL 2005 Season Week 11 Picks

I think this pretty much sums it up:

"According to Chatman and accounts from other players, Ferguson was injured while running a deep go route along the sideline.

Chatman said quarterback Brett Favre overthrew Ferguson, who was pulling up. But rookie safety Nick Collins didn't see the ball and bumped Ferguson, whose knee buckled."

from the nfl.com power rankings (is that enough of a source?)

"Despite all the injuries, they showed a lot of spunk going in and winning at Atlanta. That might be the type of victory that keeps Brent, er, Brett Favre around for a while."

No respect.

how come i never pick the right starters for ff?

 

I'm gonna be bold and lay down some law here.  Everyone needs to stop talking about the relative qualities of wins and of losses.  Every week, it seems it's the same argument.  The Vikings lost to one team by 239 points and the packers lost by 200.  This team played that team's B team and the other one played their C team and Larry Johnson's mom played their D team.  And what does a typical 2 and 7 team look like anyway?  When the Vikings sucked big time a few years ago, they lost a ton of games by just one play.  I don't think there is a typical way to have any sort record.  The NFL consists of 5 good teams and 27 teams that suck and the Vikings and Packers are both in that category.

And just for the record, it's great that the Packers have more offensive yards, especially since the Viking's needed approximately zero offensive yards to beat the Giants.  So I guess none of it really means much if you look at it that way.

well if you look at it my way it is much more favorable to supporting my opinion, which is what I will choose to do.  But when you really think about it, when the Vikings and Packers play, you can throw records out the door.  It's just interesting that the Packers are 2-7 and somehow are a favorite in any game.

And when both teams do suck, we do need to discuss the relative quality of wins and losses.  How else will we know which team is better?  If the Packers win by a field goal again, are they equal to the Vikings?  What if they win by 4 and thus outscore the vikings by 1 point on the season.  I think we need a BCS type scoring system to determine which team (packers or vikings) sucks least. 

Also, there will apparently be 7 teams that suck that make the playoffs, which isn't really anything unusual I guess.

You don't need a BCS type system to find out who sucks more/less.  If you read my game comment you'll see that it has already been scientifically determined.  All you guys need to do is figure out the correct order.

That last comment was, of course, mine.

1 being most sucky

1. Doug Mientkiewicz

2. Ron Gardenhire

3. Trent Green

4. Vikings

5. Packers

Of course last year you won almost every game in a simmilar fashion. So you could say the same thing in reverse. It just shows how easily you could have been 6-10 or worse last year. I'm just saying is all. Stupid freaking Vikings indeed, they could have put it away like 5 times but they have to make sure to test everyone's hearts/intestinal tract.

Also you say you would rather have the Packers lose by 30 than 3 but that isn't true. The nerve wrenching close fgames aren't fun while watching them maybe, but the mental effects of a big thrashing are very noticeable.

I almost wooped up, 12-4.  But I was the only one to pick Arizona, Oakland, and Tampa Bay, while 3 of the 4 games I got wrong were also picked wrong by at least one other person.  So I think I still win based on strength of schedule.

Comments on the football game: Go Bucks!  Wait, what's that?  They just got rocked by 20 points again?  Ok, well go Badgers men's BBall team, 2-0 baby!

And just for the record, I finished 2,493 overall in Yahoo fantasy NASCAR.

Two comments on the close loses thing.  One, the reason the Packers keep losing the close games is because their defense can't make a stop when they need to and with Favre only having one WR to throw too, they can't put together drives at the end of games.  Secondly, the Packers and pretty much every other team in the league are too conservative on offense.  There are way more close games then there should be.  If you have something going on offense, run up the score.  Don't start killing the clock in the second quarter.

Stop adding comments so I can finish this dumb thing and go to bed.  Jeremy, if you think rooting for the Packers is going to do any good, you should be forewarned that I've already been rooting for the Bears and now that Packers have absolutely positively no shot at the playoffs I am fully prepared to root against them if need be.

No I'm not shocked that the Packers are 2-8.  That's why I named my team Go Bucks.  As Jeremy mentioned they won a bunch of close games last year, they lost half of the o-line, the defense stunk and they didn't bring in anyone to help there (except Bates, who I think is actually doing a decent job given the players they have), Walker held out then got hurt in the first game, Green is reaching the age of break down for all but a rare few RBs, Sherman is still the coach, etc. etc.

I despise white space (in this case tan).
Make it stop.
Nevermind, I rembered how to do it. 

I feel this article is somewhat relevant to the current discussion.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/051122

Remember when Thigpen dropped the ball so we won the division instead of the Lions?  Then we were in the playoffs against the Lions and I think we beat them?  Those were good times.  We have had a lot of good times...  (past good times, not so much in the present)