The Sunday Morning Janesville Gazette usually gives a full page rundown concerning the upcoming Packer game. This summary includes injury reports, series history, several keys to watch, team leaders, expected starting lineups and main substitutes, and the betting line. The bottom section includes the prediction of five Gazette sports writers; the persons in the know, the local experts.
Here are their predictions:
Dave Wedeward: "A loss in Buffalo doesn't bode well for a trip to a dome." "Vikings 31, Packers 28."
Pretty reasonable assessment.
Tom Miller: "Packers begin their drive to ensure that their games do not get hit with NBC's flex schedule changes." "Vikings 20, Packers 7."
Tom, you should give up your day job, and I wouldn't recommend anything in cutting edge humor, either.
John Barry: "I can't think. I'm going through Jillian Barberie withdrawal. Brad Childress ran same boring offense at Wisconsin." "Vikings 3, Packers 2."
John, I see that McDonald's is looking for help.
Ken Veloskey: "Another loss, and it's time for the Packers to turn to Aaron Rodgers." "Vikings 28, Packers 10."
Ken, weren't you fired from writing obituaries for submitting them for persons still living? It's time for the Gazette to turn to Aaron Rodgers as he will have plenty of free time for awhile.
John McPoland: "I have a hunch Green Bay has just enough offense to win this game. We know the Vikings have no offense." "Packers 17, Vikings 13."
Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
Among the five experts, one got it right, one was respectably wrong, and three had their heads firmly inserted well into their otherwise impacted sigmoids.
A friend in Texas used to parse the word 'expert' with the following etymology: 'ex-' is from the word meaning 'a has-been', and 'spert' is derived from the root meaning 'a drip under pressure'. With apologies to John McPoland, I'd say my friend was most generally correct.