That is three MASSIVE favourites.

When you're playing from behind though... Gotta take a shot.

Seattle

New Orleans

Pittsburgh

Seattle

Pittsburgh 

New England 

Cowboys

Steelers

Patriots

I have no idea how we are favorites against dallas.. If zeke plays he will run shreds through our D. If I hadn't given up betting I'd be all over them at $2.25 & in a multi with the 49ers 

 

Edited November 8, 20177 yr by JV7

Seattle

Cowboys

Pats.

If elliot is out I'm changing to the jets

New page so here are the games again ...

New England

Pittsburgh

Saints

20 hours ago, JV7 said:

Cowboys

Steelers

Patriots

I have no idea how we are favorites against dallas.. If zeke plays he will run shreds through our D. If I hadn't given up betting I'd be all over them at $2.25 & in a multi with the 49ers 

 

IN a few hours we'll hear, but I suspect Elliot won't play. I think Falcons are a pretty good shot. Cowboys D isn't too scary.

Elliot out.

Change cowboys to saints. 

Good start this week for... well... everyone.

42 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Good start this week for... well... everyone.

I wanted cards to win to give us a bigger gap between us and Seahawks.

Seattle copped a fair number of injuries and Sherman will be a massive loss.

1 minute ago, Gorgoroth said:

I wanted cards to win to give us a bigger gap between us and Seahawks.

Seattle copped a fair number of injuries and Sherman will be a massive loss.

Oh yeah definitely. That's why i picked them. Either they win and I get a pick, or they lose and Eagles are better off.

Those injuries though. Brown hurt straight after he gets traded in. O line still getting pancaked by a guy who hasn't played a game since 2014. But as you say,  no Sherman against Rams receivers. Wow.

13 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

Elliot out.

Change cowboys to saints. 

No love for the Jets, Gorgo? 

Seattle were morals today but such is the nature of tipping comps,  I didn't pick them and was hoping they'd lose.  Hope lost.

And what was going on with that Wilson concussion protocol?  Just totally disregarded and it was on with the show. 

Peterson being totally stifled looked to be the difference maker but I didn't watch all of the game.

 

3 hours ago, Macca said:

Peterson being totally stifled looked to be the difference maker but I didn't watch all of the game.

 

The lines weren't the difference. Seattle's O line got smashed by Arizona's. Arizona's O line got smashed by Seattle's D. The difference as usual was the QBs. Stanton played surprisingly well, but missed 3-4 open throws a starter would be expected to hit. Not wide open. But he was given time on them, or he stepped up in the pocket and just overthrew or chose the wrong angle. Wilson did his houdini/jedi thing and got Baldwin on a great play and that was the difference. Seattle would have lost a few fans today.

3 hours ago, Macca said:

 

And what was going on with that Wilson concussion protocol?  Just totally disregarded and it was on with the show. 

 

That WAS weird. Commentary on the radio said he went to the tent and got kicked out cos the doctors said there wasn't head contact. It hit his jaw. How is that not head contact.

7 hours ago, Macca said:

No love for the Jets, Gorgo? 

Seattle were morals today but such is the nature of tipping comps,  I didn't pick them and was hoping they'd lose.  Hope lost.

And what was going on with that Wilson concussion protocol?  Just totally disregarded and it was on with the show. 

Peterson being totally stifled looked to be the difference maker but I didn't watch all of the game.

 

Nah thought I’d go the safer option of the saints.

4 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

The lines weren't the difference. Seattle's O line got smashed by Arizona's. Arizona's O line got smashed by Seattle's D. The difference as usual was the QBs. Stanton played surprisingly well, but missed 3-4 open throws a starter would be expected to hit. Not wide open. But he was given time on them, or he stepped up in the pocket and just overthrew or chose the wrong angle. Wilson did his houdini/jedi thing and got Baldwin on a great play and that was the difference. Seattle would have lost a few fans today.

That WAS weird. Commentary on the radio said he went to the tent and got kicked out cos the doctors said there wasn't head contact. It hit his jaw. How is that not head contact.

Agree, both D’s were on, that dropped catch by the wideout straight after Sherman was injured was super poor and would have moved the chains and iirc put them in field goal range.

The fumble by AP on the first carry of the game was super poor. They should have scored on their opening drive there starting position was so good.

8 hours ago, Dappa Dan said:

The lines weren't the difference. Seattle's O line got smashed by Arizona's. Arizona's O line got smashed by Seattle's D. The difference as usual was the QBs. Stanton played surprisingly well, but missed 3-4 open throws a starter would be expected to hit. Not wide open. But he was given time on them, or he stepped up in the pocket and just overthrew or chose the wrong angle. Wilson did his houdini/jedi thing and got Baldwin on a great play and that was the difference. Seattle would have lost a few fans today.

That WAS weird. Commentary on the radio said he went to the tent and got kicked out cos the doctors said there wasn't head contact. It hit his jaw. How is that not head contact.

The expectations for a high return from Peterson were far greater than Seattle's running game (often led by Wilson the QB)  Peterson's 21 carries for 29 yards is a massive fail for Arizona when considering that Stanton is average at best. 

Peterson is averaging 85 yards per game and he needed to have a big game in order for Arizona to win.  Relying on Stanton is like relying on Hundley.  Wilson was always going to win that duel.

So Seattle shutting down Peterson proved to be the difference.  Seattle's defence isn't what it was but as you said,  they smashed Arizona's O-line which effectively curtailed any influence that Peterson could have had.

2 minutes ago, Macca said:

The expectations for a high return from Peterson were far greater than Seattle's running game (often led by Wilson the QB)  Peterson's 21 carries for 29 yards is a massive fail for Arizona when considering that Stanton is average at best. 

Peterson is averaging 85 yards per game and he needed to have a big game in order for Arizona to win.  Relying on Stanton is like relying on Hundley.  Wilson was always going to win that duel.

So Seattle shutting down Peterson proved to be the difference.  Seattle's defence isn't what it was but as you said,  they smashed Arizona's O-line which effectively curtailed any influence that Peterson could have had.

Yeah I see what you mean. I guess it comes down to how you rate Peterson. I never had him as being more than a 40-60 yard player against Seattle. And apart from a couple of surprisingly big games, he's done basically nothing all year. I also assumed Seattle would get out to a lead, forcing Arizona to pass more and more, leaving Peterson behind. I loved him as a player, but he's not what he was.

Stanton really looked encouraging though. I was impressed with his pocket presence, and the sheer guts of the man against that D, which I still reckon might be the scariest in the game, if not the most productive.

These injuries are much bigger news than I realised during the game. With all the other dominoes falling in the NFC, it's now becoming the most important factor in one side of the competition. When you think about how many of the serious teams have been hit, and who's been hit within those teams.

1 minute ago, Dappa Dan said:

Yeah I see what you mean. I guess it comes down to how you rate Peterson. I never had him as being more than a 40-60 yard player against Seattle. And apart from a couple of surprisingly big games, he's done basically nothing all year. I also assumed Seattle would get out to a lead, forcing Arizona to pass more and more, leaving Peterson behind. I loved him as a player, but he's not what he was.

Stanton really looked encouraging though. I was impressed with his pocket presence, and the sheer guts of the man against that D, which I still reckon might be the scariest in the game, if not the most productive.

These injuries are much bigger news than I realised during the game. With all the other dominoes falling in the NFC, it's now becoming the most important factor in one side of the competition. When you think about how many of the serious teams have been hit, and who's been hit within those teams.

Carson Palmer was obviously missed ... another major factor.  Peterson is still capable of dominant games - I knew the result before watching the highlights package but before doing that,  I looked at the stats.  And the first thing that stood out were Peterson's numbers. 

I should have been clearer ... the difference maker can often be the star not performing up to expectations.  I see it with Green Bay from time to time - when Rodgers doesn't dominate his opposite number, we invariably lose.  Not that that is his fault - we obviously ask the bloke to do too much. 

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Carson Palmer was obviously missed ... another major factor.  Peterson is still capable of dominant games - I knew the result before watching the highlights package but before doing that,  I looked at the stats.  And the first thing that stood out were Peterson's numbers. 

I should have been clearer ... the difference maker can often be the star not performing up to expectations.  I see it with Green Bay from time to time - when Rodgers doesn't dominate his opposite number, we invariably lose.  Not that that is his fault - we obviously ask the bloke to do too much. 

You know, it could be the making of Green Bay, all this injury stuff. If you find out what you look like sans Rodgers, you can maybe trade and draft in some good players. It's great having Rodgers, but for years now, it's hard to see where Green Bay are weak given they're always ahead.

I've always thought Green Bay were one good WR too many. The great strength of guys like Brady and Rodgers is it doesn't really matter who they have at WR, Those guys will make them look good, then trade them away for important pieces. Then when they need someone, trade a fourth rounder for the next Randy Moss.

And yeah I know the scuttlebutt and media attention was all about Peterson. I think I yawned a bit at him because of fantasy. He's sort of an afterthought there. You take him, but he's had two winning games and then a whole pile of absolute dreck outside that. And like I say, 21 carries behind that line, running into Seattle.... he was never going to break off more than one or two runs. 

1 minute ago, Dappa Dan said:

You know, it could be the making of Green Bay, all this injury stuff. If you find out what you look like sans Rodgers, you can maybe trade and draft in some good players. It's great having Rodgers, but for years now, it's hard to see where Green Bay are weak given they're always ahead.

I've always thought Green Bay were one good WR too many. The great strength of guys like Brady and Rodgers is it doesn't really matter who they have at WR, Those guys will make them look good, then trade them away for important pieces. Then when they need someone, trade a fourth rounder for the next Randy Moss.

And yeah I know the scuttlebutt and media attention was all about Peterson. I think I yawned a bit at him because of fantasy. He's sort of an afterthought there. You take him, but he's had two winning games and then a whole pile of absolute dreck outside that. And like I say, 21 carries behind that line, running into Seattle.... he was never going to break off more than one or two runs. 

Peterson won't dominate all the games like he used to but as a former A grade elite RB,  he's still quite capable of a number of big games.  I'm filthy that GB didn't secure him when we had our chance.  I made mention of it on this thread.  Peterson doesn't need to dominate every game in order to be highly effective.

Rodgers,  like Brady,  makes his WR's look better than they actually are.  So on that front,  I agree with you. 

McCarthy will get off the hook ... the classic reasoning will be - "He hasn't got Rodgers,  it's not the coach's fault"  Which is bs. 

Just now, Macca said:

McCarthy will get off the hook ... the classic reasoning will be - "He hasn't got Rodgers,  it's not the coach's fault"  Which is bs. 

Depends. If they lose, say, 80% of their games without Rodgers... then that's enough for people to say, hey, this coach might not have the goods. Is that what you want though? McCarthy out new guy in? Chip Kelly is available? lol

It'll be interesting with Peterson. I reckon you'll find he's toothless now. Against bad D lines he'll be fed the rock cos he has a name. Against good Ds he'll be given the rock to begin with, and won't do anything. I look elsewhere for good RBs... There's SOOO many good young ones. Did you see Kamara last week? wowee.

8 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

Depends. If they lose, say, 80% of their games without Rodgers... then that's enough for people to say, hey, this coach might not have the goods. Is that what you want though? McCarthy out new guy in? Chip Kelly is available? lol

We could lose every game and he'll keep his job (going into next season)  The scrutiny when Rodgers does play is never on McCarthy.  In fact,  McCarthy is rarely,  if ever scrutinised. 

The media leave him alone.  And in order for a coach to be cut loose, there needs to be media pressure like there is on McAdoo right now.  And McCarthy is highly thought of in Green Bay.  There aren't many voices like mine. 

1 minute ago, Macca said:

We could lose every game and he'll keep his job (going into next season)  The scrutiny when Rodgers does play is never on McCarthy.  In fact,  McCarthy is rarely,  if ever scrutinised. 

The media leave him alone.  And in order for a coach to be cut loose, there needs to be media pressure like there is on McAdoo right now.  And McCarthy is highly thought of in Green Bay.  There aren't many voices like mine. 

yeah I must admit. Even in my League with Packers fans, noone picks on him. Too much success in the last 10 years.

6 minutes ago, Dappa Dan said:

yeah I must admit. Even in my League with Packers fans, noone picks on him. Too much success in the last 10 years.

On the back of one player (Rodgers)

I was in denial for a long time Dappa but losing big games due to poor coaching has changed my mind.  Mind you,  I wouldn't just replace McCarthy with anyone. 

In a perfect world it might be Jon Gruden

Edited November 11, 20177 yr by Macca

1 minute ago, Macca said:

On the back of one player (Rodgers)

I was in denial for a long time Dappa but losing big games due to poor coaching has changed my mind.  Mind you,  I wouldn't just replace McCarthy with anyone. 

In a perfect world it might be Jon Gruden

I love Jon Gruden in commentary too much.

On McCarthy... it's interesting. The comparison might be Andy Reid. And not just on Girth. Reid was a long term coach, much beloved. Won Championship games. He had QB trouble in two seasons, went 8-8 and 4-12 in back to back years and was run out of town. Chip Kelly was and is hated there, but he was successful. And even with that, and the sudden rise of the Eagles, there's STILL commentary from the outside that Philly made a mistake booting Reid.

The comparison is interesting though. Back to back losing seasons under McCarthy... what would happen then? The point is likely moot, because for that to happen Rodgers would need to get hurt again.

Cheers Falcons. Eagles now, I don't think will lose NFC East.