Are You Ready for Some Football

[SlowwHand]

I didn't see a reason to post nfl.com's latest power rankings past 6.

[Jaguar]

The only team better than the Cowboys right now is San Diego. And maybe not even them.

I expected the Cowboys to suck this season because TO would be a disappointment (check), the line would still have trouble sometimes (check), and that would trigger magic self-destructo-Bledsoe (check). But nobody knew they had a random undrafted quarterback who could step in right away and turn them around like that.

[Dis]

I'm still not convinced on the Cowboys. Who are they playing this week? Hopefully a decent team.

And for obvious reasons, I'm still not convinced with Chicago as well (easier to say that now, but I've been saying it all season)

[-Jrabbit]

The Tuna knew. He prepped him in preseason and pulled the trigger when the time was right. And TO has toed the line for the most part. All in all, a great job of coaching in Dallas.

Though it pains me to say it...

[Dis]

New Orleans. Cool. I'd like to see how they fare against Bush. The line is Cowboys -6.5. Interesting. But they are at home. Might be a good game.

Have we had any discussion yet about the NFL network? I really dislike paying more money to watch football games. I'm thinking the NFL is getting way greedy here. It's bad enough I have to pay to watch monday night football now.

[Donegeal]

The 'boys beat an overrated and one dimensional Indy team. Then they kicked the crap out of a VERY bad Tampa team and people started to talk. Last week they barely overcame a depleted and crumbling internally Giants. In a Chicago-Dallas game (regardless of where they play) I pick Chicago without hesitation.

Oh... and the NFL network sucks. Or at least I think it does as I have never watched it. I don't pay extra to watch ESPN, what makes those goons think I will pay extra for them?

[-Jrabbit]

You're going to have to beyotch to your local cable company, to get them to add NFLNet to their offerings.

You never had regular Thursday games before, so they figure you're not missing anything (since local stations can still carry their local teams on free TV).

Their announcing team does, however, suck.

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I didn't see a reason to post nfl.com's latest power rankings past 6.

Gee, how did I guess that #6 would be Dallas?

[Jonny]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
You're going to have to beyotch to your local cable company, to get them to add NFLNet to their offerings.

And not many companies are rushing to add it. I guess not too many people want to see such great machups such as Browns vs. Steelers, or Chiefs vs. Raiders.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Donegeal
The 'boys beat an overrated and one dimensional Indy team. Then they kicked the crap out of a VERY bad Tampa team and people started to talk. Last week they barely overcame a depleted and crumbling internally Giants. In a Chicago-Dallas game (regardless of where they play) I pick Chicago without hesitation.

Ditto, but I wonder what the Las Vegas line would be.

I follow Sagrin's power rankings. He has the Bears #1.

Commentators generally have SD as #1, though Ditka likes New Orleans.

Dallas is clicking and Romo looks good, but Chicago is super strong, from its defense to its running attack. Everyone will have a hard time beating Chicago except if Grossman has games like he did last week.

Rex, avoid the turnover and hand it off. The Bears should win.

[SlowwHand]

Donegeal, you sound like a frustrated Wisconsin fan.

[Donegeal]

Are you kidding? I'm not frustrated about anything for Wisconsin Football. I think the main reason why your not hearing anyone from Wisconsin *****ing about being excluded from the BSC is because they all know that they didn't really play anyone this year and would get spanked by 1-8 in BCS fairly soundly.

And PLEASE remember... I am NOT a Packer Fan. I live closer to Chicago than I do to Green Bay, and they aren't the Green Bay Wisconsin Packers.

The real irony to me being a Bear Fan is the High School I played for was Parker (close to Packer) HS and their colors were Green and Gold. To make things worse... we were the Parker Vikings.

[SlowwHand]

I didn't say Packer fan. I jumped threads on you, JUST to give you a hard time.

Man, you did have a confusing childhood.

I'm in trouble. I can't figure out how to do my college bowl picks.
Being dumb is a bummerooski.

[SlowwHand]

I, Am Ironman.

Offseason ankle surgery likely for Favre
NFL.com wire reports


GREEN BAY, Wis. (Dec. 6, 2006) -- Packers quarterback Brett Favre says he probably will need arthroscopic surgery on his left ankle after the season to clean out bone spurs.

The 37-year-old Favre said he had similar surgery on his ankle in 1996 to remove large bone chips and a spur.

"I have to kind of convince myself to do it," he said. "It's one of those, 'I'll say I'll do it and when the time comes, uh, I can wait.' But we'll see."

Favre has been on the injury report most of this season with injuries to his ankles, groin and right elbow. The injury to a nerve in his elbow forced him to miss the second half of a 35-0 loss to the Patriots on Nov. 19.

Favre, a three-time MVP with a record for quarterbacks of 253 consecutive starts, said pain in the ankle comes and goes.

"Some days it feels better than others," he said. "Today's not one of those days where it feels good."

Favre, who has thrown for 2,848 yards, 15 touchdowns and 12 interceptions in his 16th season, said team physician Dr. Patrick McKenzie told him it would be a simple operation.

"I'm sure it would feel much better," Favre said.

Favre wouldn't speculate whether he will return for another year, but said an operation would not affect any decision he makes.

[Dis]

some people just seem to stay on to pad the stats ans should have retired. I'm mainly thinking about Brett Favre and Emitt Smith.