As I mentioned in a couple of places, I chose to pick against the grain this week. Fourteen of my sixteen picks went against our consensus. Was I a genius, or an idiot? The results are mixed. Our consensus got ten games right this week, including the two that I joined you (NO and MIN). I got all six of our consensus losses right (IND, CHI, NYJ, ATL, STL, and BAL).

My week began encouragingly, as SD led most of the way before allowing OAK to tie the game and win in overtime on a field goal. My week ended the same way. CIN took (and blew) a 14-0 lead, before also going to OT and losing on a FG.

Last week, I nominated three players for the Football Mensa award for getting our three worst losses as a consensus right. This week, I got all six consensus losses right. Can I nominate myself? Of course! It's my FanPost.

Who will get this week's Football Mensa award? Nominees are:

• oldboysfan, who responded to last week's blitz by Aggie Man and revellyre by breaking free of the the tie and taking a one-game lead into week #17.
• hookerhome, the only one to get right all six games missed by our consensus.
• hookerhome and Paul Schork - two of three to pick BAL, two of thirteen to pick STL, two of nineteen to pick ATL, and two of thirty to pick NYJ.
  
• notquiterite, after being teased by me for being "not quite right" in an earlier difficult week, responded with an incredible 13 to beat our consensus by three this week, and out-pick every other participant. His only misses were PIT, DAL, and NE.
  

This was an easy choice. Congratulations to this week's Football Mensa - notquiterite

Now, for this week's report:

Participation each year tends to fall off as each season winds down. I noticed that when tracking 10-for-10, and it has been true here as well. However, it has been worse this year. After never having fewer than two hundred participants in any of the first twenty-nine weeks of this contest, we have been below that number three of the past four weeks. This week was our lowest ever.

Only 169 got picks in on time, and two submitted picks after the deadline and appealed to One.Cool.Custumer to have them accepted. That's why the Thursday and Saturday games only have 169 selections, and the others all have 171.

As always, thanks and welcome to our first-time players. We always have first-time players every week. Please keep coming back. We also have a larger group this year who have only played once and not returned. I'm hoping that our nine who joined us this week will return for week #17. Otherwise, they are the latest in the 390 out of our total 884 participants who have only played one week. Only 402 of our participants have played more than two weeks. Here's a quick (non-table) breakdown of our individual/seasonal participation:

• 86 - played all sixteen weeks (total score range from 156 down to 121)
• 41 - played fifteen weeks (total score range from 142 down to 113)
• 20 - played fourteen weeks (total score range from 136 down to 108)
• 17 - played thirteen weeks (total score range from 126 down to 96)
• 11 - played twelve weeks (total score range from 113 down to 86)
• 9 - played eleven weeks (total score range from 100 down to 89)
• 8 - played ten weeks (total score range from 92 down to 79)
• 11 - played nine weeks (total score range from 88 down to 65)
• 18 - played eight weeks (total score range from 78 down to 64)
• 16 - played seven weeks (total score range from 69 down to 56)
• 27 - played six weeks (total score range from 61 down to 48)
• 28 - played five weeks (total score range from 53 down to 34)
• 40 - played four weeks (total score range from 46 down to 28)
• 70 - played three weeks (total score range from 33 down to 19)
• 92 - played two weeks (total score range from 26 down to 10)
• 390 - played only one week (total score range from 14 down to 1)

Here is the Participation Table, tracking the first sixteen weeks:

For the second week in a row, our consensus - successfully - picked the Cowboys to lose. After some lean pickings in the middle of the season (only getting four right in week #10), we now have double-digit consensus wins in four of the past five weeks. Both of our "even" games (57%-43% and 56%-44%) went "our" way. We had two games with 168-3 preferences. One was our biggest win, and the other was our worst loss. We did go 10-6 this week, but all six of our losses were substantial - 66% was the "best" loss, and 98% was the worst.

Here are the results of our consensus preferences for each game in week #16:

Way to go, guys. After leading most of the season against the Front Page Writers, and falling behind the past two weeks, we won both of our discrepancy picks and moved back ahead of them to take a one-game lead into the final week.

I'm glad to see that, but I'm sad to explain how/why we passed them. For the second week in a row, our consensus favored the Cowboys to lose, while the FPWs favored the Cowboys to win. Take away those two "wins", and we would still be trailing entering the final week.

Here's the table tracking the weekly consensus scores of Pick 256 participants and the Front Page Writers:

In recent weeks, I have begun listing every-week players who suddenly missed a week. It's not to call them out or embarrass them. It's because I am used to seeing them each week, and I genuinely miss seeing their names pop up as I am writing these FanPosts and preparing these tables. Sometimes, it helps.

We had eleven miss getting picks on time who had played all fifteen weeks. Two actually got picks in late and got One.Cool.Customer to accept them. So, they are no longer among the missing.

Here are some of this week’s missing-in-action:

• first miss (played the first fifteen weeks) – Blue & silver, Chad Loveland, LoboTX, Pagrebo, Sandmann, switters023, TazJr89, Tr1v1al, Uriahchase
• second straight miss (played the first fourteen weeks) – c.matson18, Mikhaili
• third straight miss (played the first thirteen weeks) – HowleyAtTheMoon, daboyz21
• fourth straight miss (played the first twelve weeks) – chappycav, EFtheGiants, ptp39, Ryan Keeling

Others who are missing this week after playing most of the season:

• second total miss – banananas, Fred G Samford, newwallOD, NutriaBoudin, Smax17177
• third total miss – AKCOWBOYFAN, CowboyOcelot, Markythearky, tenkin, TNCowbyfan, T Zig
• fourth total miss – BayouCowboys, BOWAC1, Speedy1211, WilliamC, yushay bohra

To all who missed - please come back. We miss you.

Two weeks ago, I teased notquiterite for having an appropriate name (along with gonfishin) for the two at the bottom of the week #14 scores through the early games. Both had only one correct game. That's how gonfishin finished, and then he went fishing (hasn't been back). However, notquiterite rebounded nicely, finishing with 3 and posting 11 last week.

But... wow! Look what he did the week!. He was very right, posting our top score of the week, with 13 right. Only two scored 12. The first "block" was eleven with 11, and those fourteen are the only ones to beat our consensus this week.

Here are the week #16 scores of all 171 participants:

After giving up sole possession of first place this past week, oldboysfan broke free from his three-way tie with Aggie Man and revellyre and will take a one-game lead into the final week. How did he do it? What kind of gutsy picking did he do?

Actually, oldboysfan matched our consensus on all sixteen games. We got 10; he got 10. So, how did Aggie Man and revellyre drop off the pace, after making up a three-game deficit last week? They matched our consensus on fifteen games, but each picked PHI over WAS. By the margin of that one game, they now trail by one game entering week #17.

None of those at the top made up any ground, when ground could have been made up, as all near the top posted scores between 8-10.

Here are the scores of all 884 who have played at least once this season:

My final table each week lists Pick Accuracy. This week, I am leaving out the "stuff" I have been repeating (why I do this, how scores are compiled, etc.).

With our higher consensus scores this week, several who had dropped off the chart are back on this week. To average 60% accuracy per pick requires a score of 10 during a sixteen-game week (60% of 16 = 9.6), and as few as 8 during a thirteen-game bye week (60% of 13 = 7.8).

However, we actually dropped ten from this chart this week (from sixty-three down to fifty-three), because we lost several who had played nine weeks, posted good scores, and disappeared. Nine weeks was enough to qualify through last week (9 / 15 = 60%), but it took ten weeks to make this table, and it will take eleven weeks to make the final Pick Accuracy table.

Our leader again this week is APerfectStar. He has been at or near the top since joining this contest in week #3. Others who have missed weeks and stay near the top of this chart are Cowboy Joe and Cowboys Win. I also want to give a special shout-out to Dallasdave1966. He missed the first six weeks, joined us in week #7, and has played faithfully every week for ten consecutive weeks. Last week was his first time to make the chart (8 / 14 was less than 60%, and 9 / 15 = 60%). If he had played every week, he would have been solidly in the top ten overall. This chart is to recognize and honor these players. Congratulations to all who have remained faithful, even after missing a week or more (or, joining the contest late).

Here are all fifty-three who have played at least 60% of the weeks, and have gotten at least 60% of their picks right:

Again, I invite you to come back to this page throughout the weekend for my updates (comments) as the other games progress.

Week #17 contest is already open. Please post your picks before the first Sunday games kick off, or you will miss out on having your picks count for each game. This is the only time that the deadline is this late, as it is the only week with every game on Sunday.

HAPPY NEW YEAR from the Hooker home.