Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lock of the weekend

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MJD
    replied
    Originally posted by MJD
    Don't count GB out just yet. One of my assistants has a brother-in-law on the NE o-line. She will go to every game until they lose. Bit of a hike from Brantford.
    Guy is getting a bit of press. We'll see if this actually comes to fruition:


    "Kaczur's story is a good one, a tale that will no doubt be told over and over as Super Bowl hype machine cranks up. The U.S. media will make a big deal of the fact that he's from Wayne Gretzky's home town and of his unorthodox journey to the NFL."

    http://torontosun.canoe.ca/Sports/Colum ... 2-sun.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Pego

    The Midgets do have a pretty good chance, IMHO .
    The Cowgirls verses the Midgets...........I gotta go with the midgets.
    Good call, Squack. What about next week on the frozen tundra of Lambeau field?[/quote]

    Im pickin da Pack.....when no ones looking, i also like the Homies in this NFC matchup. :P[/quote]



    Wheather forecast for Sunday.

    Highs in single digits, windchill factor below zero.

    Uggh!

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego

    The Midgets do have a pretty good chance, IMHO .
    The Cowgirls verses the Midgets...........I gotta go with the midgets.[/quote]

    Good call, Squack. What about next week on the frozen tundra of Lambeau field?[/quote]

    Im pickin da Pack.....when no ones looking, i also like the Homies in this NFC matchup. :P

    Leave a comment:


  • 26mi235
    replied
    The early forefast for Madison is a high of 11 for Sunday and it is only a high of 7 for Green Bay after a low of -4. Since the game is not until 5:30 CST, it will not be 7 at game time (maybe about 3-4 for the start and it might be below zero at the end).

    Given these temperatures we will undoubtedly get many renditions of the extreme conditions of the Ice Bowl, where the wind chill was reputed to be -40 or something. Note that this conversion is badly flawed. Several years ago they revised the formula for wind chill to reflect two big flaws.

    First, the official wind speed is at 10m above the ground in an unobstructed point. The wind speed at ground level is only a fraction of the value. Thus, a wind speed of 10mph at 10m is only about, say, 6mph at ground level. Since you could see the condensing breadth slowly moving away from the players, the high wind speeds of a reading many miles away and meters higher does not represent the conditions on the ground.

    Second, the formula was developed for a temperature range that was focused on the 20s or even higher. Since it was a simple quadratic it gave vastly overstated adjustments at low temperatures.

    The revised formula, presumably a much closer representation of the effective conditions, was probably no more than -15. That is still quite cold, but much different than the old mischaracterization. If there is much wind for the game and the forecast is kept the same or revised downward and there is much of a breeze (probably not, given the nature of the forecast, which probably represents the presence of a stable high-pressure system), this game will not be much warmer than the Ice Bowl, so look for a II being attached to the game.

    [malmo seems to have an even better grasp of these things so maybe he will comment on/correct a bit my post here]

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Texas
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.
    Hey Tex, what do you think of the Giants chances. A guy at work made a bet with me. He said we both had to take a dog to win. I got to go first. I took the G-men and he took the Seahawks! hahahahahaha :P
    The Midgets do have a pretty good chance, IMHO .
    The Cowgirls verses the Midgets...........I gotta go with the midgets.
    Good call, Squack. What about next week on the frozen tundra of Lambeau field?

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Texas
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.
    Hey Tex, what do you think of the Giants chances. A guy at work made a bet with me. He said we both had to take a dog to win. I got to go first. I took the G-men and he took the Seahawks! hahahahahaha :P
    The Midgets do have a pretty good chance, IMHO .
    The Cowgirls verses the Midgets...........I gotta go with the midgets.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Texas
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.
    Hey Tex, what do you think of the Giants chances. A guy at work made a bet with me. He said we both had to take a dog to win. I got to go first. I took the G-men and he took the Seahawks! hahahahahaha :P
    The Midgets do have a pretty good chance, IMHO .

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    Originally posted by Texas
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.
    Hey Tex, what do you think of the Giants chances. A guy at work made a bet with me. He said we both had to take a dog to win. I got to go first. I took the G-men and he took the Seahawks! hahahahahaha :P
    That's the game ya don't bet because you have no edge either way. This will be your classic turnovers game, meaning whoever makes the most loses. The Giants can play on the road and are in a revenge mode. The Cowboys can play at home. Both teams having suspect QB's. No Brett Favre or Tom Brady in this one. I took the Cowboys in a contest only because I had to pick somebody, so I simply went with the home team.

    The Seahawks were suppose to lose in GB, can't say that about the Giants in Dallas.

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Texas
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.
    Hey Tex, what do you think of the Giants chances. A guy at work made a bet with me. He said we both had to take a dog to win. I got to go first. I took the G-men and he took the Seahawks! hahahahahaha :P

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by guru
    Yep, Garrard needed to be perfect and he wasn't. He was good, but a fumble and INT is all the Pats need when Brady goes 24-26, and the two incompletes were drops. It's just scary how good NE's O-Line is in pass protection.
    I thought Garrard was very very good and when he runs with those little tiny strides he's deceptively fast. Brady usually had time but its Still amazing how he hits a moving bullseye EVERYTIME.

    Leave a comment:


  • Texas
    replied
    It was a pretty easy pick actually. Who had the Seahawks beat ..."on the road"..in 2007? Try nobody! They didn't beat one playoff team as roadwarriors. They are stricky a home team. Once they leave Seattle they become very, very average. GB went 3-1 vs playoff teams. Now add the Favre factor and we have exactly what we saw.

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Yep, Garrard needed to be perfect and he wasn't. He was good, but a fumble and INT is all the Pats need when Brady goes 24-26, and the two incompletes were drops. It's just scary how good NE's O-Line is in pass protection.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    OK, golf it is!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    The Packers looked good. I am happy 8) .

    Leave a comment:


  • guru
    replied
    Originally posted by tafnut
    I don't think my Jags will fare much better.
    Not so fast. I think that may very well be the upset special of the weekend. The Patriots defense, especially their line, has looked very ordinary the last month. If Garrard doesn't make any huge mistakes, and this is key, whoa nelly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X