NFL 2012 Season Week 5 Picks

Just so you all know, my 43 wins so far is reflective of much more luck than skill! It sure is fun, though!

Maybe you should buy a couple of powerball tickets? Also, don't forget to make the rest of your picks!

If my Eagles can get through the next 2 games I will whole heartedly believe they are true SB contenders. That means we have beaten the ravens, giants, steelers and lions.....all of witch are pretty good teams. Fingers crossed.

lions, lol

Browns all up ons the Giants 14-0, not even 5 minutes into the game. Neat.

well, my beef was legit at the time. Then again, I assumed the Packers were a little better than that as well.

Is it just me, or do the Vikings uniforms look like they were trying to make the players look they had long, braided, golden hair like the stereotypical viking caricature? On a side note, my assessment of most of the supposed "improvements" of the new NFL uniforms has been a complete disaster. I may have said this before on here, or Facebook, or elsewhere, but the Lions and the Colts (in particular, there may be more) look like all their players suffer from hyperhidrosis, here and here. And on top of that, the whole winged collar thing just looks stupid (v-necks went out with bell bottoms, did they not?). I got heat for saying that I was glad that the Packers didn't change their uniforms, partly because of the tradition of the Packers uniforms being pretty similar (except for the drastic modifications like removing stripes from their socks and adding some shine to their helmets) to what they've had for 50 years, and also because of some of the descriptions of the new designs. But after seeing these things in practice, those that choose to change can have their change. Those that resisted are the ones that look geniuses. Of course this is my opinion, and some people may like the new changes. In my opinion, the new uniforms mostly just look terrible.

To be fair, if I recall, you mostly "got heat" for just being wrong. No one claimed "changing stripes on the socks" was a drastic change. Just that the changes they have made were equal to, or greater than, the changes Nike proposed to all but the Seahawks. (Although, for the record, I do still disagree with your implication that the socks somehow don't matter just because they're socks. As if Christian Ponder having solid white/black/purple/hunter orange/striped/pink/tiger print socks on in the picture above, and that wouldn't somehow change the overall look. Or, at least, would be on par with changing the color of the shoelaces.)

Also, to be fair, no one claimed the "sweat panels" was an aesthetic change. It was always a functional change designed to whisk away sweat to keep players cool. So, at it's fair to say it's working exactly like they intended, assuming of course the concept of doing that isn't total bunk.

Edit: Link: http://www.nutcan.com/blog.php?content_id=1316&subject=2012_NFL_Offseason

Well, I never claimed their uniforms had never ever changed. So I wasn't "wrong" about anything. I was happy that the Packers didn't change their uniform because of some trendy new fad. If they make the changes on their own terms, then I'll address it at that time. And since I have found that most of the changes look terrible (in my opinion), then any changes that Packers may have made over the last 50 years are nowhere near "equal to or greater than the changes Nike proposed". The design features that Nike has proposed and many teams have implemented look terrible. So I'm glad the Packers stuck to their guns.

Also, you're severely torturing the language about the socks and I'm not even going to justify it with a response. Regarding the sweatbox, the entire point of Uniforms is aesthetics. Who designs a uniform with the specific point of not looking good? So if some so-called "functional" feature makes you look like you are having a severe health issue, then the "function" isn't worth the price, particularly if the "feature" provides at best a minimal improvement over the former option, which this probably does. If the point of uniforms ISNT" aesthetics, then good luck with your ugly uniforms. I'll take a uniform that IS about aesthetics.

Perhaps I can concede this point (get ready for some snark): Perhaps the total number of changes the Packers have made to their uniforms from about 1960 to 2012 are indeed equal to the changes many of the teams went with since last season.

Well, this was like the 3rd or 4th time you implied it was silly to factor the look of the socks in. I'm not really sure I strawmanned your strawman all that badly.

I'm not sure how you could even argue that changes like moving stripes, moving/removing numbers, and changing socks, are less of an aesthetic change than adding a sweat panel which you really only even notice when it's fulfilling a (purportedly) functional purpose and, only for certain teams, a 2 toned collar.

Assuming the panels aren't bunk, (It's obvious they're filling their "absorb moisture" purpose, but most of us just have to take their word that that has a purpose) I'll take a competitive advantage over "looks better" every single time. I think it's a bit loony if you wouldn't. Maybe the reason the Packer's suddenly look sluggish against everyone is because all the other teams are 3 degrees cooler.

Bigger players say they are too tight.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578032580348686340.html
Following up on my comment that bigger players don't like them. Apparently, the absorbtion feature creates more problems than it solves.


For the Ravens' Cody, the trouble begins in particular whenever it gets damp. "It feels like it tightens up and stuff, it's hard to breathe, it constricts," Cody said. As soon as his jersey gets wet, he added, "it's kind of ruined."