Football! (the real kind, not the European variety)

[Maridia]

Hey Pete, if you had me be the holder even I wouldn't screw my job up. But Romo issssss a **** up. I don't mind Dallas but Romo is not my kinda guy.

I hate to say theirs tiers of quarterbacks but he seems like the one where his boyish "Woopsies!" attitude will keep him around a while. And he'll see several play off spots. But he'll never win it all.

And I'm a firm believer Jon Gruden needs to be a coach again. I always love his color commentating but the man pours such enthusiasm he deserves to be back at it...probably not in Tampa shockingly enough.

[Walter Sobchak]

'85 Bears ring a bell? Hell, even the '06 Bears -- Grossman had more turnovers than he had touchdowns.

Jim McMahon was ten times the quarterback Sanchez is, and Thomas Jones is no Walter Payton. As for Grossman, he was alternately awful and great. He managed to temper it for a few games.

I really have no idea who to pick to win it all this year. The Colts are probably the best team, but they are going to be blindsided as usual. The Chargers have Norv Turner as a head coach, so there is little hope. Same goes for Wade Phillips in Dallas. Belicheck does not have the defense, or Welker now, to win on the road.

Prediction for now: Ravens vs. Packers. Ravens get in because the quarterback's name ends in a vowel, and Packers get in by creaming Favre in the Metrodome.

[Polk]

God dammit.

A shitty start, neither team's defenses came out to play in the second half, and the Packers are out.

God dammit.

[Shan'do Spike]

God dammit.

A shitty start, neither team's defenses came out to play in the second half, and the Packers are out.

God dammit.

One man's disappointment is another man's party. So I'm going to take your God damnit and raise you with a "Hell yeah!"

[Pete]

That game was the definition of ugly. Does either team know how to make a tackle?

That being said... we face the Chargers... sigh.

[Shan'do Spike]

That game was the definition of ugly. Does either team know how to make a tackle?

That being said... we face the Chargers... sigh.

Definitely. Just..not Bryant McFadden or Michael Adams. If we had lost, they would have been the Packers's MVPs. Cromartie had a good game, except for the one time he gambled for a pick and got beat for a 30 yard pass instead.

Also: Pete, I assume you're happy that tonight's games finally settled the Woodson vs. Revis argument. Ochocinco did nothing, and Fitz went for 80 yards and two TDs.

[Pete]

Oh I'm loving it, but at the same time, I'm pretty nervous about the Chargers.

I never really saw No-show-cinco as a threat anyway. He's not a physical player, so if you play him tough and don't let him get space, you'll beat him. Even though Revis held him to two catches, I'm pretty upset with the refs calling 3 interference calls against him. Two of those calls were on NOTHING and the third was questionable at best. It definitely got into his head towards the end of the game, when he started to play a little back. I don't want to see it bite him in the ass down the line.

My only real hope is that the Chargers will be rusty from their week off. I doubt it though. I can only hope that the Chargers still have a weak rushing game and that our D can contain Rivers, and preferably knock him on his ass a few times. Plus they're ranked 20th in rush defense vs the #1 rush team. The only thing we really have to worry about is Antonio Gates.

[Walter Sobchak]

It is hard to pick against the home teams next week. The Chargers are probably the hottest team in the league, the Colts are undefeated when they try, and the Saints are not going to be outpassed at home. The only away team I can see winning is the Cowboys against the slumping Giants, but at the end of the day the Cowboys are still coached and quarterbacked by choke artists.

****ing Eagles, though. I saw big things.

[Zargabaath]

As a Packer fan, I am quite upset at the officiating that tainted the Packers-Cardinals game last night - that destroyed the Packers attempt to win.

In overtime, when the Packers were called for holding there should have been another penalty flag thrown - against Arizona. Bertrand Berry jammed the crown of his helmet right under Rodgers' facemask, which with the new rules protecting players from hits to the head, should have been called that would have negated the hold by the Packers. It has been called all year and in this instance nothing; the officials have been all over with protecting plays that involve the "head" and even more so with the QB.

Second which is probably more grievous is during the final play of the game Michael Adams grabbed the facemask of Rodgers' and held for some time. The touchdown should have been null and the Packers should have kept the ball with a first down, I believe on the latter point. Now, Peter King, said in a blog...

The referee, Scott Green, stands behind the pocket and has to watch first for the loose ball. Once the ball is out, Green's job is to watch ball for possession. He can't watch the QB then. If he saw the facemask, it'd mean he wasn't watching ball. It's a quirky rule, but it's the referee's call -- and the ref is charged with possession once the ball is loose...

I totally understand this but there are a couple of problems with this.

1.) The time from when the ball came out of Rodgers' hand to when Adams facemasked Rodgers is less than a second so his sight should still have been able to see the facemask.

2.) A continuation, partly, on point 1 - the ball was around 2 feet away from his Rodgers' face and still relatively close the official should still have seen Rodgers' face.

Here is a pic of two seconds after the fumble which in reality is an interception (Tuck rule)... Photo Gallery - Yahoo! Sports

Now here is a pic when Rodgers and Adams are on the ground... Photo Gallery - Yahoo! Sports

You can still see that Adams is facemasking Rodgers; that is a few seconds that not only Backjudge(?) should have seen but other officials had enough time to catch a glimpse.

NFL Videos: Wild Card Can't-Miss Play: Cards pull it out This is a video of the play. As you can see all within the 3rd second of the video do you see the hit, looseball, and facemask.

This whole year the NFL has been coming down hard on hits to the head and always has called facemasking and it is more so with QB yet somehow the officials botch it up not once but twice!!! This brings back memories of the 2009 baseball playoffs that were plagued with bad calls - disgusting and saddening.




Also, on the Revis vs. Woodson thing, while I did not read in depth of what the sides talked about, I just saw comment left by Shan'do Spike.

1.) Ochocinco is no Fitzgerald nor ever has been; Fitzgerald is by far way better.

2.) Palmer is not as good as Warner who excels even more in the playoffs. Palmer is pretty good but Warner is definitely on another level - a higher level.

[Xyst]

Walter, I think you mean the Cowboys play the Vikings, who went into the playoffs on a win, play at noon (before Favre's bedtime), and at home, and also just had a bye week. I'd say their chances are pretty decent. (Note: Xysty likes the Vikings). Zarg, I feel your pain man. The one time I WANT the packers to win. Two players on my playoff challenge team gone, feh.

Ya know if there had been football threads here when I was still around I prolly never woulda left, haha.

[Rydia Lover]

I've always been an eagles fan when i found out my cousin used to playfor them during the 70s, but i do realize they are not the greatest team in the nfl.

i also have tons of friends and family in new orleans so obviously im going for the saints this season. went to the saints redskins game this year, best football i have ever gone too!!!

[Shan'do Spike]

In overtime, when the Packers were called for holding there should have been another penalty flag thrown - against Arizona. Bertrand Berry jammed the crown of his helmet right under Rodgers' facemask, which with the new rules protecting players from hits to the head, should have been called that would have negated the hold by the Packers. It has been called all year and in this instance nothing; the officials have been all over with protecting plays that involve the "head" and even more so with the QB.

You are correct: this was an incorrect call. You also fumbled two plays later.

Second which is probably more grievous is during the final play of the game Michael Adams grabbed the facemask of Rodgers' and held for some time. The touchdown should have been null and the Packers should have kept the ball with a first down, I believe on the latter point. Now, Peter King, said in a blog...

I'm snipping the rest of this, because it's the whining I've been reading since the game ended. Two points here. Firstly, the facemask came very clearly after the fumble. Even if it had been called, it would have been the Cardinals ball, just backed up. Do you really think your defense stops the Cardinals at that point?

Secondly, let me pull the facemask definition out of the NFL rulebook for you:

A "facemask" penalty is a judgment call that is not reviewable by replay.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 5 of the NFL Rule Book (page 81) states that "no player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction."

The Rule Book describes the penalty as follows:

"Penalty: For twisting, turning or pulling the mask: loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature."

The Rule Book describes an approved ruling as it relates to facemask penalties (page 81).

"A.R. 12.12 - Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1's facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn or pull. Ruling: A's ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No foul."

The last part is the important part. Even if he grabbed the facemask (he did), incidental facemask grabbing is not a penalty unless there's some form of twist, turn, or pull, which there's no real evidence of. Watch the angle Adams comes in at: he doesn't have any sort of angle to do a twist or pull, because he's coming in at a 90 degree angle to the way Rodgers is facing. What you really want called is the incidental facemask penalty, which got removed in 2008. Now, all facemasks that are called have to be 15 yards, but touching the facemask is no longer an instant penalty.


But seriously, if you want to blame someone, try blaming your defense for not being able to cover our fourth-string receiver. Anyone who has ever played sports knows that calls even out over the course of a game, and blaming the refs is always a weak excuse.






Oh, and as for why I made the Revis vs. Woodson comment: Green Bay hadn't really faced any of the super-elite receivers all year (I'm defining this group as something like Andre Johnson, Randy Moss, Reggie Wayne, and Fitzgerald.). They've faced teams with really good ones (Calvin Johnson, Sidney Rice, Miles Austin), but they haven't had any of the super-elite receivers before Fitzgerald. Revis went against Andre Johnson, Moss twice, and Reggie Wayne, and he pretty much shut them all down (obviously, Wayne didn't play the full game). The only super-elite opposition Woodson had was Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald had a solid game against him (70 yards, 2 TDs). Revis also went against Roddy White and Steve Smith, who are about as good as the Johnson, Rice, Austin group. Pretty much all of those receivers were completely shut down. Woodson is a phenomenal player, and he deserves serious consideration for defensive player of the year. Revis just deserves it more.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Eh, I didn't even notice any facemask grabs-incidental or otherwise. I actually got to watch most the second half of the game, too, at a friend's house (where there were several old people watching as well, including a pastor, so I had to act like a normal, calm person for a change, ha.) It's too bad the game ended that way; kinda anti-climactic, don't you think? Rodgers probably feels like crap after that. It was his first start in the post season, wasn't it? Oh well. The Pack will probably be back again next year. It'll be okay, guys! At least it was a close game in the end (and Rodgers led his team back!) Although I am disappointed in the performance of the D. Nick Barnett, especially (from OSU.)

Lessee, who will I root for now... Maybe the Chargers or the Cardinals (West Coast teams.) Or the Vikings (my dad and most my family are Vikings fans...) Or the Saints. Pretty much anyone besides the Colts or the Cowboys (no offense, there, Meier Link, but it's been instilled in me since I was very young to dislike the Cowboys by my father.) Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Zargabaath]

You are correct: this was an incorrect call. You also fumbled two plays later.



I'm snipping the rest of this, because it's the whining I've been reading since the game ended. Two points here. Firstly, the facemask came very clearly after the fumble. Even if it had been called, it would have been the Cardinals ball, just backed up. Do you really think your defense stops the Cardinals at that point?

Secondly, let me pull the facemask definition out of the NFL rulebook for you:



The last part is the important part. Even if he grabbed the facemask (he did), incidental facemask grabbing is not a penalty unless there's some form of twist, turn, or pull, which there's no real evidence of. Watch the angle Adams comes in at: he doesn't have any sort of angle to do a twist or pull, because he's coming in at a 90 degree angle to the way Rodgers is facing. What you really want called is the incidental facemask penalty, which got removed in 2008. Now, all facemasks that are called have to be 15 yards, but touching the facemask is no longer an instant penalty.


But seriously, if you want to blame someone, try blaming your defense for not being able to cover our fourth-string receiver. Anyone who has ever played sports knows that calls even out over the course of a game, and blaming the refs is always a weak excuse.

First off, as I said in my prior post, it was an interception not a fumble the refs got that one wrong (Tuck rule). It was a tuck however Rodgers' kicked the ball and the Cardinals defensisve player caught the ball.

Two even if is not a facemask it is a Hands in the Face which is a penatly.

Thirdly, when you watch the play, you will see that Adams yanks the helmet of Rodgers. I gave you a link to the video did you not watch?

Here's another once just in case it doesn't have this angle. Packers' Rodgers worried about his mistakes, not facemask no-call

Watch and at the 1:05, and maybe at the end of 1:04, you will see Adams yanking, tugging, turning, pulling the helmet of Rodgers. Case closed.

First off, trying to say that the calls even out is not an excuse to excuse the refs. So you fail there, please learn to have rational points when debating. K. Second the calls didn't even out because Fitzgerald committed an offesive pass interference on Woodson (not called) and the Packers were called for "Roughing the passer", the refs amazingly saw that play against Warner but not two clear penalties in the span of 1-2 minutes of game time.

[Chaos_Weapon]

Sadly to say. I missed the game, but I do remember hearing that news. Did it result in suspension? Or did he just get pulled from the game? Basketball Seasons on, along with Grey's Anatomy's 2nd Season. Can't be focused for that long. And did he just say that grabbing wasn't a penalty to the face mask? Any contact to the face is a penalty regardless of the situation. GO STEELERS BTW!!

[Shan'do Spike]

Any contact to the face is a penalty regardless of the situation.

You are incorrect. I quoted from the NFL rulebook as to why you're incorrect, but I'll post it again with giant emphasis on the end of the rule:

A "facemask" penalty is a judgment call that is not reviewable by replay.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 5 of the NFL Rule Book (page 81) states that "no player shall twist, turn, or pull the facemask of an opponent in any direction."

The Rule Book describes the penalty as follows:

"Penalty: For twisting, turning or pulling the mask: loss of 15 yards. A personal foul. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be of a flagrant nature."

The Rule Book describes an approved ruling as it relates to facemask penalties (page 81).

"A.R. 12.12 - Third-and-10 on A30. Runner A1 runs to the A33, where he is tackled by B1, who incidentally grasps A1's facemask on the tackle, but it is not a twist, turn or pull. Ruling: A's ball, fourth-and-seven, on A33. No foul."

Note, I'm not saying what did or didn't happen with the last play of the game. I'm just contesting the assertion that "touch the face => automatic penalty".

I'm just going to choose to not respond to your other post. You're a Packers fan. I'm a Cardinals fan. You're always going to see calls as biased against you, just as I'm going to see them as biased against me. (And for the record, I just watched the video again. I see absolutely nothing from that angle that couldn't be a natural body response to his lower body being tackled to the ground. He gets hit and he falls to his left. His head does not move at any weird angle or velocity that suggests it's being pulled or hit.). You'll complain about Woodson getting pushed over. I'll point out that Woodson was being just as physical to Fitzgerald, and things like that happen when the referees decide to "let the players play". It's similar to different umpires having different strike zones in baseball. As long as they are consistent, it's generally considered okay. Trust me, if I really wanted to spend the time (I don't) I could find tons of plays where Woodson knocked the crap out of Fitzgerald but it wasn't called. This is exactly what I mean by "calls even out over times". The reason you're not seeing them on highlight shows is because the Cardinals won. There's a reason Packers players aren't mouthing off, complaining about the refereeing, and it's because they know they had plenty of chances to win the game beyond that.

Anyway, this is a pointless argument. I just didn't want the "any contact to the face is an automatic penalty stuff to stand".

[Sasquatch]

I'm just contesting the assertion that "touch the face => automatic penalty".

Yes and no. Touching of the FACE is illegal, as it's "hands to the face". Touching the FACEMASK, however, is not. As you pointed out -- again -- the "inadvertent facemask" penalty -- the five-yarder -- is no longer illegal. So if a player grabs the facemask and twists or pulls it, or uses it to bring the opposing player down, that's a personal foul -- if a player has his hand on the facemask, even if he grabs the facemask but does nothing else with it, it's not a foul, and there is not a penalty. Case closed.

I just love how some people think, "I've seen a few dozen, maybe even a hundred or two NFL games, I know more about what's illegal and what's not than those damn referees that have only been through a little training on it and only ref'd at least once a week during preseason, regular, and postseason for the last twenty years!"

I see it all the time at bars on Sundays. There are ALWAYS situations that "should have been penalties" -- especially when it comes to drunken Packer fans. I'm surprised more fights didn't break out when they played the Vikings.

Of course, there ARE some plays that should have been penalties, and there ARE some plays that were called penalties that should not have been. But to speculate that any refereeing is "biased" is just ridiculous. People lose their lives over that stuff -- and no, I don't mean they're killed (in America, anyway), I mean that that a referee who displays bias would lose their career and be sued, not to mention whatever the fans try to do. Hell, Steve Bartman was just a (baseball) fan who caught a foul ball, and he got death threats for years.

I also have to laugh at any accusations that support Al Harris and Charles Woodson, who are excused a few times every game for pass interference and illegal contact because "that's just their playing style". It's like like Mike Tyson getting away with biting because "that's just his boxing style".

I also have to laugh at the terms "we", "us", and "our". You're not part of the team. (Not calling out anybody specific, just in general.)

ANYWAY ... Looks like my picks are still holding up. I don't follow AFC too much, but NFC, of course. (In the AFC, I kinda like the Dolphins, and I can't stand the Patriots and Raiders -- that's about all I care about them.) I don't know if the Cowboys are good enough to keep it together, but they've really buckled down in the last month or so. The Vikings, I expect to choke, just like they've always done in the past. The Saints have the potential in their speed, but I don't think they can keep up the pressure. And the Cardinals just aren't consistent enough -- it'll depend on which Cardinals team actually shows up. I mean hell, last week, the Offense showed up but the Defense didn't.

As for AFC ... the Jets have an awesome defense, and I really liked the fact that I didn't hear any trash-talk from Revis after he prettymuch shut down Ochocinco two weeks in a row -- of course, Ochocinco had diarrhea of the mouth, but that's to be expected of him. Plus, I'm a fan of Thomas Jones since he played (well) for the Bears. (Cedric Benson played for the Bears too, but it seemed like once he got the starting spot, he kinda crapped out -- glad to see he's got his act together with the Bengals, though, he'll probably be a good franchise HB.) I'd like to see the Jets go far, even though they are rivals of the Dolphins. And they're playing the Chargers, which'll be a tough game for 'em. I'd venture a guess now that the Jets can beat Baltimore, but not Indy (especially in Indianapolis) -- of course, they've got to get past the Chargers first.

Sidenote: If you smoke, and you want to piss off a Vikings fan, here's what you do. You know that thin plastic wrapped around cigarette packs, where the bottom 2/3 or so are still there after you open it? Slide that down the rest of the pack, then set it on the bar/table/etc. open-side down. "You know what that is? That's a Minnesota Vikings trophy case."

Sidenote #2: I also think it's safe to say that the NFC North will be a damn tough division next year. Once Cutler gets settled in with the Bears and they make a few changes (well, a lot of changes with their staff), the Packers will still be good, and so will the Vikings. I can easily see three of the six NFC playoff teams next year coming from the NFC North.

[Chaos_Weapon]

I figured as much. Back in High School, my coach used to scream at my linebackers for doing that when they couldn't play defense correctly. LOL. The good ol' days.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Aw, c'mon! Complaining about the officiating is part of being a fan, haha. I'm sure it's stressful for the ref; he's got very little time to determine if something happened that shouldn't have, and he isn't going to see everything that happened on the field... but the fans will, when they see an instant replay seconds later. And some (seems like most) plays are unreviewable.

For example; each of the past three years, I think, a PAC 10 official has been suspended for poor officiating of a game. the first time was the Oregon/Oklahoma game, when the replay official effed up on an onside kick call that cost Oklahoma the game. The next year was the Oregon State/Washington game, where the officials did not protect the players well enough. The third was the Oregon State/USC game, where a player's helmet was ripped off his head, and no flag was thrown. Fans from around the conference can tell you they've gotten a pretty poor reputation.

Just sayin', I think fans have reason to complain, sometimes. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Zardoch]

Honestly, I don't know why refs are needed anymore or at least why they need to be ON the field. Seriously, there are practically HUNDREDS of cameras EVERYWHERE and these middle-aged men do not have the eyes of a hawk. Furthermore, they're technically another blocker for the defense as in many plays I've seen, they're presence has made things difficult for both sides and screwed up a lot of plays. It's ridiculous. If anything, they need to take a FEW refs, put them in a room with tons of TVs and instant replay shit and I assure you that they're mistakes will be fixed, though there should be some refs on the sidelines so that certain catches and other situations can be addressed quickly.

Anyway, besides the Saints the only other team I'd be rooting for is the Jets. Maybe the chargers. I hope the Saints regain that strength as well because they deserve a chance to win it.

[Sasquatch]

For example; each of the past three years, I think, a PAC 10 official has been suspended for poor officiating of a game.

NFL > NCAA

Honestly, I don't know why refs are needed anymore or at least why they need to be ON the field. Seriously, there are practically HUNDREDS of cameras EVERYWHERE and these middle-aged men do not have the eyes of a hawk.

Of course -- technology is no enhanced now, why do we even have players? Why isn't the NFL just a video game anymore, where people sit at home instead of actually going onto the field?

It's a game of humans. And just like Shan'do Spike pointed out, it's just like strike zones in baseball -- it's all part of the game.

Furthermore, they're technically another blocker for the defense as in many plays I've seen, they're presence has made things difficult for both sides and screwed up a lot of plays. It's ridiculous.

How many times has that happened in an NFL game, like a dozen?

If anything, they need to take a FEW refs, put them in a room with tons of TVs and instant replay shit and I assure you that they're mistakes will be fixed, though there should be some refs on the sidelines so that certain catches and other situations can be addressed quickly.

That's a great idea!

There'll be refs ON the field, but there'll also be refs somewhere else ... we'll call that other area the "replay booth". And the refs ON the field will make calls, but in tight situations -- like within two minutes of the end of each half, or when one coach feels like the call should have gone the other way -- the call will go up to the guys in the "booth". We'll even incorporate this "coach's challenge" idea into the game -- we'll make sure they don't abuse it by challenging every play (say, only give them two or three, and charge them a timeout if they lose), and what the hell, let's even give them a little flag to throw!

Wait ...

Ooooooooh yeah.

[Polk]

Sidenote #2: I also think it's safe to say that the NFC North will be a damn tough division next year. Once Cutler gets settled in with the Bears and they make a few changes (well, a lot of changes with their staff), the Packers will still be good, and so will the Vikings. I can easily see three of the six NFC playoff teams next year coming from the NFC North.

I agree. The Bears should be fine once Cutler gets settled down, The Vikings are still one of the most talented teams in the entire league whether or not Old Man Favre delays his retirement, and the Packers will be fine as long as they fix some glaring offensive line problems. Hell, maybe even the Lions will have a good offseason and not be God awful next year. Hey. Stranger things have happened.

As for the rest of the post-season, I'll be exclusively cheering against Brett Favre. I wouldn't mind seeing the Cardinals make another run at the title, as I like Kurt Warner, and I have no problems with any of the AFC teams, since the Patriots got crushed.

[Walter Sobchak]

The word is that they are allowing Jay Cutler to interview offensive coordinator candidates, so they should be building a whole offense around him. Maybe they go and get Brandon Marshall and make a show of it, who knows.

Anyone but Brett Favre is my mantra for the rest of the season. I would like to see the Cardinals win. I would root for the Colts, but their dismissal of perfection angers me.

[Shan'do Spike]

4th and 1, 1:09 left, 17-14 Jets. Jets have the ball. I'm screaming "GO FOR IT" so loud that I hope they hear me in San Diego.

Also, the Cowgirls were completely outmatched for the Vikings. Good for them. Sidney Rice is looking really good.

[Walter Sobchak]

I am glad the Jets won. The Colts are my dog left in the fight, and they can handle the Jets much easier than the Chargers.

If the Super Bowl is Favre versus the Jets, I will hang myself.

[Pete]

Sorry James, but I'm totally hoping for that matchup. It'd be just enough drama to make it interesting, but not so much that it overshadows the game itself. I would find it funny though if we do get that matchup, since I'm sure both Favre and the Jets are like "Oh well I guess we didn't need each other after all."

I am so stoked right now. The Jets played really well, but they also got a lot of help from just stupid penalties on SD's part... and Nate Keading's misses. If he even makes one of those, it's a totally different game.

That being said, I like that the Jets are playing the Colts again. We played them well once already, and I'd like to give em hell once more. Hopefully we can just keep the defense are tight as ever and just pound em with the running game.

And just for old times sake.

J
E
T
S

JETS
JETS
JETS

[Maridia]

I love all the teams in the playoffs right now. Favorites being Vikings since they've been my underdog team since I got into it. But what I especially love was last off season I said how this year with all the changes Jets were gonna be playoff bound. I can't say I thought they'd do this well but good for them!

On another note I ****ing hate the Chargers. They're the old Red Sox of football. They waste a playoff spot for another team who can actually win and have a bunch of shitty excuses when it doesn't work out. If Shawne Merriman didn't slap women around so much maybe he woulda had more stamina...Ohhhhh!!!

And overall whoever wins the Super Bowl I'll be happy. A rookie qb with a solid coach, old man Favre and the Vikes who have never had a win, Drew Breese who is one of the most underated qb's til this season and has always been really cool, or the one and only Peyton Manning deserves more rings than he has sadly at the moment.

[Shan'do Spike]

Sorry James, but I'm totally hoping for that matchup. It'd be just enough drama to make it interesting, but not so much that it overshadows the game itself. I would find it funny though if we do get that matchup, since I'm sure both Favre and the Jets are like "Oh well I guess we didn't need each other after all."

I am so stoked right now. The Jets played really well, but they also got a lot of help from just stupid penalties on SD's part... and Nate Keading's misses. If he even makes one of those, it's a totally different game.

That being said, I like that the Jets are playing the Colts again. We played them well once already, and I'd like to give em hell once more. Hopefully we can just keep the defense are tight as ever and just pound em with the running game.

Hah, I knew you'd be psyched. Congratulations, man. You guys played a hell of a game. Also, Kaeding helped, but still.

I think the Jets match up pretty well with the Colts. Then again, I thought the Ravens did too, (slightly worse defense, better passing game, in my opinion) and we saw how great that worked out for them.

Congrulations to Vikings fans, too. Though I'll still be hoping to see the Saints in the Super Bowl. They've been my #2 preference for the NFC champs this whole year (behind my Cards ). Should be some good games next weekend.


God, I hope. This week's were all pretty awful. Jets/Chargers was by far the best, and that was boring for a while.

[Walter Sobchak]

I will be content with either the Saints or the Colts, although I prefer the Colts. I could deal with a Vikings win if Favre gets injured, and a Jets win if Rex Ryan drops dead. Despite the Jets being division rivals, I never really had any hatred for them until Rex Ryan arrived. It is hard to hate a team in your division when they are not the Patriots, but that jackass makes it possible.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Well, I guess I'm rooting for the Vikings and the Jets this week. If the Vikings went, it would be a big deal to the whole family (they're originally from North Dakota, and Minnesota is right over there.) There would probably be a football party like those of old. Although I wouldn't mind the Saints winning, either. And I don't like Peyton Manning. When they used to lose, he'd always blame his teammates, and for a while, he was in all those commercials. He's not as bad as Tom Brady, though. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom