Welcome back, gents. Before we get down to business, we have one quick housekeeping matter. Due to time constraints (read “laziness”), we were not able to post Week 6 results earlier this week -- so this post will be a combination of last week’s results and this week’s picks. In fact, we’re just gonna go ahead and do it this way every week from now on. Anyway...
All we can say about last week is, “Coulda been worse.” We made some pretty dumb mistakes, but we also learned a couple of things (and of course, we have at least one excuse for one of our losers.) Our tally last week was a survivable 6-8-2 unit-wise. We got it right on the Jets/Broncos over (4 units) and the Cowboys/Vikings over (2 units). We were wrong on (of course) the Bears (4 units) and the Titans/Jaguars over (4 units). We pushed on the Colts (2 units)--though to be honest, we must place an asterisk next to that one: the line when we picked (on Saturday) was Colts -3; by the time the game kicked off, it had moved to to 3.5...no doubt victimizing pickers everywhere with the evil last-minute hook.
So here’s one thing we learned -- and it’s an EXTREMELY simple lesson: NEVER EVER EVER EVER go heavy on the Bears, no matter WHO they are playing. They are simply too inconsistent to rely on them with any degree of confidence. This rule may be subject to change later in the season, but for right now, we’ll be making any Bears picks with an extreme note of caution.
As for our "excuse"? As you know, not only did we pick the Titans/Jags over, but we said we LOVED it. “Love” is not a word you’ll see often in our picks. And while we sometimes feel like boneheads after a pick goes south, we feel no regrets about this one. We can’t say this for certain, but we’re fairly sure that more points would have been scored in that one if BOTH starting QB's hadn't been knocked out in the first half. So anyway, that's our excuse--but maybe it's just karmic payback for the lucky push on Indy.
And we did learn a couple of other things last week. Though we only make picks on televised games, we do keep an eye open for interesting results/stats/trends from other games (they can always be helpful later, when those teams ARE televised). And though we know none of our readers gamble, some of you may be involved in free confidence pools or charitable wagering contests or the like...so these are for you, too. Three things jumped out at us from last week. First, after their 8-point loss at the Giants, the Lions are an incredible 5-1 (!!!) ATS. Though they can barely win a game to save their lives, they DO keep 'em close enough to f*** up your world if you go against them. The next interesting item from last weekend was this: by kickoff time, the 49ers were an incredible SEVEN AND A HALF point favorite against the Raiders. Yes, the Raiders are pretty terrible, and yes, the game was being played in San Fran, but how in the world can an 0-5 team be favored by more than a touchdown against ANYBODY? And of course, the Niners ended up covering. We know this for certain: a LOT of pickers saw that line and jumped all over Oakland -- and took it in the shorts. (If that game were televised, WE probably would have, too.) This is one that falls under the "too good to be true" rule that we have discussed in previous postings.
The last item of interest from last week took place off the field. And before I throw this out there, I must say that a reader in Simmons' mailbag mentioned this idea -- but I SWEAR I thought of it earlier in the week. With the league's new crackdown on hard hits, how can we, picking the games, benefit? I say, until we see further evidence, that this development favors overs (at least where it's a close call). How many touchdowns will be scored because a DB hesitates for a split second and fails to knock out a receiver? Maybe none, but until we know for sure, if you're playing totals, that HAS to be taken into consideration.
As for our readers last week, both dbato (7-7) and Philip J (8-3-3) beat our score. As we pick the winner out of a 1985 vintage Bears stocking cap, drum roll, please...the winner is: Philip J. (As a side note, Philip was also on the receiving end of a STUNNING breach of etiquette in the comments by reader Jim, who will indoubtedly be punished by the "Karmic Gods of Picking" this week for his jackassery). Anyway, congrats, Phil -- and check your mailbox every day this week for your $6 KFC certificate.
Week 6 Record:
2 wins, 2 losses, one push
6 units won, 8 units lost, 2 units pushed= -2 units
Year-to-Date:
13 wins, 11 losses, 1 push
37 units won, 34 units lost= +3 units
In the NFL overall, don't call it a comeback, but the favorites regained momentum. They were 7-6-1 ATS, for a year-to date record of 35-52-3 ATS. Overs were, by a slight margin, the better pick this week, with 8 games going over and 6 under (47-42-1 YTD).
Now on to this week... Before we pick, we'd just like to say that this week offers what may be the crappiest slate of televised games YET. But on the bright side, there's only 4 of them. So we got THAT goin' for us, which is nice...
1. Redskins at Bears: Will Jay Cutler actually have time to look at his receivers before getting sacked this week? Will Donovan McNabb light it up in his return to Chicago? Who knows? We sure don't... The Bears may be 4-2, but we're hard-pressed to remember a worse 4-2 team. Put simply, the outcome of this game is a coin flip-- and the oddsmakers agree: giving 3 points for home-field advantage, they are essentially saying these teams are even. Can we find any help on the total by looking at statistics? Chicago is averaging 18.7 “Points For” and 16.2 “Points Against”; Washington is at 18.8 PF and 19.8 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 19-18, Bears. With a total of 40, that doesn't help us much. So we're going to say the 'Skins give up quite a few passing yards (their "D" gives up an average of 298.2 in the air), the Bears give up a few less (the Skins' "O" averages 244.2 in the air), and maybe our wild card Devin Hester breaks one -- all in all, we think we're gonna see some scoring. But we're not willing to go heavy on that pick...
The pick: OVER 40 (2 units) (Spread is Bears -3)
2. Patriots at Chargers: This one definitely feels like a "too good to be true" line. The Pats are 4-1, the Chargers are 2-4, and the books have this one at Chargers -3. Why? Maybe because the Chargers are 2-0 at home -- or maybe because the oddsmakers KNOW MORE THAN WE DO. While a quick glance at this game would lead us to say "Pats all day" (and most of the picking "experts" seem to agree), we're gonna proceed with caution. So how about this? The Patriots are 4-1 over/under, the Chargers are 4-2. New England is averaging 30.8 “Points For” and 23.2 “Points Against”; San Diego is at 26.2 PF and 21.0 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 26-25, Pats -- which would be over our total of 47.5. Add to that these facts: the Chargers average 38.5 PF at home; the Pats put up 41 in their last road game (at Miami); and the aforementioned desire of Roger Goodell to turn the NFL into a two-hand-touch league. With that said, the over feels really good here.
The pick: OVER 47.5 (4 units) (Spread is Chargers -2.5)
3. Vikings at Packers: AGAIN with the Vikings? We've seen more of Brett Favre this year than the people on his texting friends list have... Anyway, let's look at the total first. Minnesota is averaging 17.4 “Points For” and 17.6 “Points Against”; Green Bay is at 23.2 PF and 18.7 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 20-18, Packers -- which would be WAY under our total of 44. However, these teams' last four meetings have gone over -- with an average of 53.8 total points per game. What does that tell us? As usual, nothing--except we're gonna stay away from the total here. We say that Green Bay's one-dimensional offense has a hard time against the Vikings' good D, and Adrian Peterson has success against the Pack's D, and the Vikes cover.
The pick: Vikings +2.5 (3 units) (Total is 44)
4. Giants at Cowboys: To save ourselves some typing, we'll ask you to re-read the Pats-Chargers comments above. The Giants are 4-2, the Cowboys are 1-4...and Dallas is GIVING 3 points. We know what to do here. The last two games between these teams went over, the Cowboys' last two games this year went over, and the Giants went over last week. For those reasons, plus the Goodell Theory, our best guess here is over.
The pick: OVER 44.5 (2 units) (Spread is Cowboys -3)
Please remember to enter the weekly contest by posting your picks in the comments. Remember also that on a 4-game schedule, the minimum number of units is 11. (For you new readers out there, contest details can be found here.)
As always, we'll track our record by picks AND units. Noroc!
All we can say about last week is, “Coulda been worse.” We made some pretty dumb mistakes, but we also learned a couple of things (and of course, we have at least one excuse for one of our losers.) Our tally last week was a survivable 6-8-2 unit-wise. We got it right on the Jets/Broncos over (4 units) and the Cowboys/Vikings over (2 units). We were wrong on (of course) the Bears (4 units) and the Titans/Jaguars over (4 units). We pushed on the Colts (2 units)--though to be honest, we must place an asterisk next to that one: the line when we picked (on Saturday) was Colts -3; by the time the game kicked off, it had moved to to 3.5...no doubt victimizing pickers everywhere with the evil last-minute hook.
So here’s one thing we learned -- and it’s an EXTREMELY simple lesson: NEVER EVER EVER EVER go heavy on the Bears, no matter WHO they are playing. They are simply too inconsistent to rely on them with any degree of confidence. This rule may be subject to change later in the season, but for right now, we’ll be making any Bears picks with an extreme note of caution.
As for our "excuse"? As you know, not only did we pick the Titans/Jags over, but we said we LOVED it. “Love” is not a word you’ll see often in our picks. And while we sometimes feel like boneheads after a pick goes south, we feel no regrets about this one. We can’t say this for certain, but we’re fairly sure that more points would have been scored in that one if BOTH starting QB's hadn't been knocked out in the first half. So anyway, that's our excuse--but maybe it's just karmic payback for the lucky push on Indy.
And we did learn a couple of other things last week. Though we only make picks on televised games, we do keep an eye open for interesting results/stats/trends from other games (they can always be helpful later, when those teams ARE televised). And though we know none of our readers gamble, some of you may be involved in free confidence pools or charitable wagering contests or the like...so these are for you, too. Three things jumped out at us from last week. First, after their 8-point loss at the Giants, the Lions are an incredible 5-1 (!!!) ATS. Though they can barely win a game to save their lives, they DO keep 'em close enough to f*** up your world if you go against them. The next interesting item from last weekend was this: by kickoff time, the 49ers were an incredible SEVEN AND A HALF point favorite against the Raiders. Yes, the Raiders are pretty terrible, and yes, the game was being played in San Fran, but how in the world can an 0-5 team be favored by more than a touchdown against ANYBODY? And of course, the Niners ended up covering. We know this for certain: a LOT of pickers saw that line and jumped all over Oakland -- and took it in the shorts. (If that game were televised, WE probably would have, too.) This is one that falls under the "too good to be true" rule that we have discussed in previous postings.
The last item of interest from last week took place off the field. And before I throw this out there, I must say that a reader in Simmons' mailbag mentioned this idea -- but I SWEAR I thought of it earlier in the week. With the league's new crackdown on hard hits, how can we, picking the games, benefit? I say, until we see further evidence, that this development favors overs (at least where it's a close call). How many touchdowns will be scored because a DB hesitates for a split second and fails to knock out a receiver? Maybe none, but until we know for sure, if you're playing totals, that HAS to be taken into consideration.
As for our readers last week, both dbato (7-7) and Philip J (8-3-3) beat our score. As we pick the winner out of a 1985 vintage Bears stocking cap, drum roll, please...the winner is: Philip J. (As a side note, Philip was also on the receiving end of a STUNNING breach of etiquette in the comments by reader Jim, who will indoubtedly be punished by the "Karmic Gods of Picking" this week for his jackassery). Anyway, congrats, Phil -- and check your mailbox every day this week for your $6 KFC certificate.
Week 6 Record:
2 wins, 2 losses, one push
6 units won, 8 units lost, 2 units pushed= -2 units
Year-to-Date:
13 wins, 11 losses, 1 push
37 units won, 34 units lost= +3 units
In the NFL overall, don't call it a comeback, but the favorites regained momentum. They were 7-6-1 ATS, for a year-to date record of 35-52-3 ATS. Overs were, by a slight margin, the better pick this week, with 8 games going over and 6 under (47-42-1 YTD).
Now on to this week... Before we pick, we'd just like to say that this week offers what may be the crappiest slate of televised games YET. But on the bright side, there's only 4 of them. So we got THAT goin' for us, which is nice...
1. Redskins at Bears: Will Jay Cutler actually have time to look at his receivers before getting sacked this week? Will Donovan McNabb light it up in his return to Chicago? Who knows? We sure don't... The Bears may be 4-2, but we're hard-pressed to remember a worse 4-2 team. Put simply, the outcome of this game is a coin flip-- and the oddsmakers agree: giving 3 points for home-field advantage, they are essentially saying these teams are even. Can we find any help on the total by looking at statistics? Chicago is averaging 18.7 “Points For” and 16.2 “Points Against”; Washington is at 18.8 PF and 19.8 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 19-18, Bears. With a total of 40, that doesn't help us much. So we're going to say the 'Skins give up quite a few passing yards (their "D" gives up an average of 298.2 in the air), the Bears give up a few less (the Skins' "O" averages 244.2 in the air), and maybe our wild card Devin Hester breaks one -- all in all, we think we're gonna see some scoring. But we're not willing to go heavy on that pick...
The pick: OVER 40 (2 units) (Spread is Bears -3)
2. Patriots at Chargers: This one definitely feels like a "too good to be true" line. The Pats are 4-1, the Chargers are 2-4, and the books have this one at Chargers -3. Why? Maybe because the Chargers are 2-0 at home -- or maybe because the oddsmakers KNOW MORE THAN WE DO. While a quick glance at this game would lead us to say "Pats all day" (and most of the picking "experts" seem to agree), we're gonna proceed with caution. So how about this? The Patriots are 4-1 over/under, the Chargers are 4-2. New England is averaging 30.8 “Points For” and 23.2 “Points Against”; San Diego is at 26.2 PF and 21.0 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 26-25, Pats -- which would be over our total of 47.5. Add to that these facts: the Chargers average 38.5 PF at home; the Pats put up 41 in their last road game (at Miami); and the aforementioned desire of Roger Goodell to turn the NFL into a two-hand-touch league. With that said, the over feels really good here.
The pick: OVER 47.5 (4 units) (Spread is Chargers -2.5)
3. Vikings at Packers: AGAIN with the Vikings? We've seen more of Brett Favre this year than the people on his texting friends list have... Anyway, let's look at the total first. Minnesota is averaging 17.4 “Points For” and 17.6 “Points Against”; Green Bay is at 23.2 PF and 18.7 PA. Those numbers suggest an approximate final score of about 20-18, Packers -- which would be WAY under our total of 44. However, these teams' last four meetings have gone over -- with an average of 53.8 total points per game. What does that tell us? As usual, nothing--except we're gonna stay away from the total here. We say that Green Bay's one-dimensional offense has a hard time against the Vikings' good D, and Adrian Peterson has success against the Pack's D, and the Vikes cover.
The pick: Vikings +2.5 (3 units) (Total is 44)
4. Giants at Cowboys: To save ourselves some typing, we'll ask you to re-read the Pats-Chargers comments above. The Giants are 4-2, the Cowboys are 1-4...and Dallas is GIVING 3 points. We know what to do here. The last two games between these teams went over, the Cowboys' last two games this year went over, and the Giants went over last week. For those reasons, plus the Goodell Theory, our best guess here is over.
The pick: OVER 44.5 (2 units) (Spread is Cowboys -3)
Please remember to enter the weekly contest by posting your picks in the comments. Remember also that on a 4-game schedule, the minimum number of units is 11. (For you new readers out there, contest details can be found here.)
As always, we'll track our record by picks AND units. Noroc!
7 comments:
Bears Chargers Vikings Cowboys...all 3 units.
As a vegetarian, I can't wait for my coupon so I can go get me some meat paste formed into chicken body part shapes. The major chains are certainly the ones treating the animals best.
Skins 3 units
Chargers 2 units
Packers 3 units
Cowboys 3 units
So only the televised games? Side note: The two games i'm taking the most action on are the Browns/Saints game and the Cardinals/Seahawks game. Everyone loves Saints -13 in spite of the fact that they haven't shown they can score on offense.
Everyone seems to be drinking the Cardinals +5.5 Kool-Aid as well, not taking into account that the Seahawks are a near betting lock at home.
I'll take:
Redskins +3 for 2 units
Patriots +3 for 8 units
Vikings/Packers over for 2 units
Giants +3 for 4 units
-Brandon
Brandon--
Thanks for the post. Check the rules--max units is 4 per game...We'll just change your Pats pick to 4 units.
That's a surprise on the Saints...I thought a lot of people would be taking the points.
Phil--
Old friend or not, one more pinko-commie outburst like that will see you B-A-N-N-E-D. (Sorry--I know you probably meant to post that in the picks section at The Daily Kos.)
I'm pretty good about taking bets from jackasses. You find one guy that thinks he knows everything because he watches horse racing and pretends to know all the horses, and people tend to be lemmings on his bets. I profit.
Dude, being veg isn't political. Didn't you catch the "HOPE" reference last week? I'm still as conservative as ever, I just don't eat things with feelings. Sing it with me! Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya...
Post a Comment