It doesn't get much sadder than this time of year for NFL fans. As the season ticks closer to the end, every game feels like a huge bonus. If you're anything like us, you find yourself wishing you'd been able to catch that epic Cleveland at Jacksonville game in week 7.
Ok, let's not go nuts - that was a very bad game. Also, I actually did watch that game and it was as if someone had put me inside some type of time dilation experiment, where every quarter lasted hundreds of your 'earth years'. I call it 'Browns Time', and it's about as nice as it sounds.
If you've been following our twitter, you'll know that we've begun work on expanding Pickwatch. First up is College Football, but we also have begun work on other sports, including Basketball, Hockey, Baseball and Soccer. There are also niche sports that we'll develop, but we'll expand on those later. Suffice to say, we're hard at work enhancing our NFL site, and with luck, the development time we spend on this will transfer to our new sites, while also making your NFL experience a lot better.
If you've got any suggestions, we'd love to hear them. We've got a million ways we'd like to improve ourselves, but the more input you give us, the better the site will be.
Here are some thoughts. If you've got something you'd like to shout at us about and address in our Super Bowl columns, send us an email, tweet us, or leave a comment below.
PED's - the reason fans are turned off the Seattle D?
Are the Seahawks Defense overrated? Maybe you think they are, but lets put that into perspective. Are you expecting the '85 Bears in an era where every rule has been pretty much adapted to favor MOAR PASSING? If the Seattle D isn't 'all world' in the eyes of some - and a few people on twitter made us very aware that it isn't to them - then I don't know what more can a team do?
The Seahawks have had the best defense in football for two years running, statistically speaking. That's not to say there aren't factors we should also consider (turnovers, sacks etc) but the Seahawks are the ones that stop people advancing the football. They stop people scoring points. Period. That isn't even a debate, and when you consider that for two seasons running, they've averaged less than 200 passing yards allowed per game... in this league? With these rules? Holy crap.
So why so skeptical? Well, I think the answer is two-fold.
First of all, the deification of Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas and now Kam Chancellor has turned off many rival fans. For all Pittsburgh had it's big stars (Polamalu, Harrison etc) over the peak years of 05-12, they were often either shy and retiring, or just plain surly. They were the antithesis of 'media-friendly', which made it easier for opposing fans to acknowledge their professional expertise. To use a cliche, here were regular, blue-collar guys who played hard, but barring the odd shampoo commercial, were all about the hitting.
Meanwhile, the 2012-15 Seahawks are about as vocal as any defense since the Ravens of Suggs and Lewis. And yeah, all that implies. Plenty of people hate Richard Sherman because he's mouthy. He's actually a nice guy, but occasionally he believes his own hype and forgets that part of being great is not needing to belittle others. Meanwhile Earl Thomas seems to believe he is the second coming (I don't know how many incarnations we're on now, so he may be the third) and has again, bought so far into his own hype that he has developed one of those faces you'd just love to punch... but you probably wouldn't...
But what is the main reason, the one big thing that stops people loving the Seahawks D?
It's PED's.
Nobody can forget that the Seattle defense is tainted by the spectre of the Brandon Browner and Richard Sherman PED accusations in 2012. As recently as last season, standout OLB Bruce Irvin was hit with a 4 game suspension, one of 8 Seahawks who have tested positive for a banned substance during Pete Carroll's tenure as HC. Let's be fair on this one - Sherman's was overturned, but the perception amongst many fans is that Seattle has - or had - a problem. Even Sherman and Chancellor acknowledged that problem after Irvin's suspension - only for Browner to be suspended along with another standout DB, Walter Thurmond, later in the season.
So what's the deal? Is it Carroll? I don't know, but he is a coach who thrives on physicality and athletic ability on defense. Irvin was a specimen coming out of college, his LB at USC Brian Cushing was also suspended while playing for the Texans (but there's plenty of speculation about whether this was simply a continuation of something that began at USC).
I think the reason Carroll's players have turned to PED's is very simple - he will always prefer his players to be bigger, faster and stronger on defense than the opponents. Dan Quinn hasn't reinvented the wheel up there, he's simply made excellent use of physical specimens like Sherman, Irvin, Chancellor, Thomas, Browner and now Byron Maxwell. The incentive to use PED's is pretty big for guys who are primarily in the starting lineup because they buck the norm in terms of size, speed or strength.
You know what? I think it's a shame. Pete Carroll is a great coach, a nice guy and the type of man we should pretty much all aspire to be when we get to his age (63!). I'd like to think Carroll is oblivious that he has played a part in this, that he perhaps underestimated the strength of his words, or the win-at-all-costs mentality he has instilled in Seattle, but I don't think he is.
Carroll isn't the naively genial guy you see on TV, he's also a very, very good coach and a man who - like Bill Belichick - is prepared to push the boundaries in order to win. I don't think he's pushing PED's on his players, but he also knows that his tacit approval for the Browner or Sherman type of player can only lead down one road.
Green Bay @ Seattle 
It's a cliche to say that the health of a QB is the biggest factor in this matchup, but Aaron Rodgers being able to move in the pocket is a huge asset to Mike McCarthy and the Packers. Put it this way, even considering the week 1 shellacking handed out by Seattle to Green Bay in the season opener, I'd have erred with the Packers were it not for the question mark around Rodgers.
Put more simply - I'd leave any bets alone. What worried me last week was that the Cowboys gave a pretty good blueprint for beating the Packers, they just failed to execute a couple of big plays. Yeah, I don't think it was a catch by the definition of the rules, and honestly how can a wide receiver in today's NFL not understand that? Even if you disagree, you adapt how you catch/control a ball if you can. If not, then your beef is with the NFL, Dez.
So yeah ANYWAY, the Cowboys showed that if you set the edge and prevent Rodgers from rolling out or moving as much as possible, you're taking away a huge part of the Green Bay gameplan. I didn't like how Rodgers threw last week, and that would be my primary consideration here, because if he's unable to move about, his pocket passing has to be on point. Watch the second half of last week's game and you'll see how he was unable to get truly Rodgers-esque velocity on some throws into tight windows. Now factor in that he's playing against - as mentioned - the best defense in the league.
Hmm. I don't like it.
The one saving grace for the Packers is that while Russell Wilson is a baller who has - and lets just soak this one in here - lost ONE game in his whole NFL career by more than 7 points, he often gives opponents a head start. One game. And that was San Diego this year. WHAT? HOW? I'm actually angry that this stat isn't used more often, because what does it tell us? That teams find it difficult to pull away from the Hawks D, and that Wilson will simply find a way to get it done.
But that saving grace? Yeah, Seattle is a winning team. but they aren't Brady-Moss 2007, or Manning to the Thomas's 2013. Wilson has completed more than 20 passes in a game just 3 times all year - not on it's own a telling stat, but it emphasises that they aren't going to come out flying. They'll let you have a sniff, and then cruelly yank it away in the last 5 minutes of the game. That's why I like the Packers to cover and the Seahawks to win.
Straight up Pick: Seattle
ATS Pick: GB +7.5
Indianapolis @ New England 
What's that? You thought this rivalry was dead? Nah. Andrew Luck is legitimately the best of the new breed, and Brady is still the type of competitor that will just run down the field and scream incoherent ramblings at a guy who just caught one of his passes for a TD. If anything, I would say that mentally Luck is about 10 years older, and Brady is 10 years younger.
Here's why the Colts worry me:
1)They have a fumbler in Dan Herron, and their backup plan ain't great.
2) Their defense is banged up, particularly in the secondary.
Let's deal with these two points and how they change the game. First up, 'Boom' Herron is a great nickname. I really like it, but of course nothing can possibly trump 2014's most impressive running back name change in Buffalo's Anthony 'Boobie' Dixon. Yes, he named himself after breasts, and he's comfortable with it, so get over it.
Anyway Herron is a nice little runner, he can certainly break big gains and hit the hole well, but his fumbling is chronic. Every time he slams into defenders I wince and assume the ball is somewhere on the ground, with 4 fumbles in a very short space of time. Put simply, I think if the Colts had a legit backup to him - or more time to find one- they'd have looked at taking some of those carries away. Instead they have UDFA Zurlon Tipton, a man for whom nicknames are pointless. he's the only Zurlon Tipton going.
So yeah, I think the Colts are primed for a couple of mistakes somewhere today, and that makes me nervous. On the other side, I'm glad Tom Brady has proved something. Do I think our friend Sam Monson of Profootballfocus was wrong to suggest he has declined? Nope, and in week 4 you'd have been hard pushed to find many people espousing that view after their capitulation to Kansas City.
Brady's easy to root for, though. Particularly now that he no longer sports the misguided 2010 haircut that - had his career ended then - would have tarnished his legacy forever. I'm not kidding. Nobody wants to remember Tom like that. Instead he knuckled down, got himself a sensible short back and sides, and apparently now dedicates himself to football far more than he ever had before. The creeping of time will do that to a guy who probably thought in 2010-11 that it was fine to grow your hair like you're in f**king Hanson and piss about at the Rio Carnival.
So yeah, glad he's back. Now Greg Toler and Vontae Davis - who are both questionable - they're two guys I'd want in a game like this, because Davis should be regarded as one of the best corners in the league and Toler is a decent - if not good - opposite corner. To put this into perspective, the next men up are Josh Gordy and Darius Butler, neither of whom have started regularly in the league over their careers. Davis and Toler are crucial factors, and even if they play, may be limited against the Patriots receiving corps.
I also think Rob Gronkowski is back to his unplayable best. I love the seam route that the Patriots run time and again - it's the go-to play when they need a drive, and when he gets his momentum going, you can't stop Gronk plundering 15-20 yards, even if you can tackle him.
Ordinarily I err on the side of caution when you have a guy like Andrew Luck who can put up big numbers, but I think this game is set up for the Patriots to hose down the Colts in spectacular fashion.
