Of course--you and your readers can't look here as an excuse for getting taken to the cleaners. Sure, I was wrong about the Patriots, but going 50/50 in "get well" games means breaking even. However, taking your challenge to find inspiration in picking two games against prevailing wisdom, means making money. Of course, had someone just read this blog and bet opposite of you on every game this week, they would've come out 10-6. But lets see how you went 6-10...
CHIEFS (-3) over Raiders: The Raiders didn't even need the 3 points. This was admittedly a tough game to pick, but the Raiders looked better against the Chargers than the Chiefs did against the Ravens last week. This game is also getting me to consider not counting special teams TD's (e.g. the Chiefs' blocked punt for a TD) in the score of a team's previous games, unless their special teams are scoring consistently.
If you take away that 7 from the Chiefs, and then treat this game as basically a pick 'em, taking the points makes sense in retrospect. Still, you're 0-1.
TITANS (-6.5) over Texans: You had all the right instincts--line acting funny, learning from the Oakland/SD game...and yet you went with the Titans. Next time, trust your instincts kid. At least with football--girls on the other hand... 0-2.
Patriots (-3.5) over JETS: There's as much egg on my face as there is on yours for this pick. It'd take a few weeks before I even consider betting on a Pats game again--are these just early struggles, or has parity finally returned to the AFC East?
Now, betting on the J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS, on the other hand... They're an early candidate for "great money line play" going forward whenever they're an underdog. A hat-trick of losses starts you 0-3.
PACKERS (-9) over Bengals: You had all the information you needed--heavy action on Green Bay, line going down...I don't think it had anything to do with the Bears or Denver defense, but a realization that Green Bay needed a late drive to win a game in which they had four INT's gift wrapped and handed to them. I'd expect the same realization to be made about the Giants this week (unconvincing Week 1 win against a BAD Washington team, and barely beating Dallas despite a huge edge in turnovers).
I'm not sure whether it's more meaningful to say Cincy is as good as Green Bay or Green Bay is as good (or bad) as Cincy. I just know that I like the outcome and what it portends as a Bears fan. The thoughts of what this did to people in confidence pools and survivor leagues also leaves me with a big smile--that's what people get for supporting the Packers in a material way.
As for Cincy, it's early, but Benson is running well and Palmer looks good. Ochocinco is still a threat, and yeah, Cincy could cover a lot of games this season.
And you win the golden sombrero for starting 0-4.
Vikings (-10) over LIONS: The Lions started this game by making it a 20 point Minnesota deficit against the spread. The Vikings stopped any fast-beating hearts with a late scoring drive in the first half and then exploited Matt Stafford with halftime adjustments that he had no chance against.
If you're horribly overmatched in personnel and coaching, you're probably the Detroit Lions.
You got on the board at 1-4 by picking against Detroit. Vegas is demanding welfare reform legislation that outlaws betting on any game the Lions are involved in for the duration of their franchise.
Saints (-1) over EAGLES: Win #2, congrats. I spent the better part of this week trying to figure out why it was a 1 point line, instead of the Saints giving about 9. New Orleans giving up 22 to a Philly team QBed by Kevin Kolb raises my eyebrows, but their scoring 48 on a Philly defense that is allegedly good quells those fears. I like NO to cover a lot of games this year--and any game they're in for the over.
Right now, I think they're the best team in the NFC.
REDSKINS (-9.5) over Rams: Ooops. Big oops, actually. The Redskins didn't score enough to cover, even had they shut the Rams out. Your losers: the Rams, anyone who voluntarily watched this game, and Tommy, who is now 2-5.
Your winner: Me. Told ya so.
JAGUARS (-3) over Cardinals: Losing team in the Super Bowl falling apart...west coast team playing a 1pm game in Eastern time...it's kind of funny, you ignore crazy movement on lines, but follow conventional wisdom here and get burned.
The Cardinals offense appears to be just as explosive as last year's version, but also just as enigmatic. I still don't know what to make of a Jax defense that holds Indy at Indy, but gets blown out at home. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't bet on either team for the foreseeable future.
2-6. Eep The good news is you're going to go 4-4 over the next games.
NINERS (-1.5) over Seahawks: You were right--this was a pick'em game, and it was a huge one for the Niners to win. Iron Mike got the only victory he believes in, and his defense softened up the Seahawks for his old team da Bears to walk right over the Seahawks in Seattke this week.
If this Seahawks team gets any more injured, the Niners could win in Seattke and not need to worry about a wild card that nobody in the NFC West is going to get.
3-6. Not respectable, but not Detroit territory either.
Buccaneers (+5) over BILLS: The Bills have scored 25 and 33 points in each of their first two games. Twelve would've been enough for the Bills to cover here. The Bills are 2-0 against the spread and seem to have no trouble scoring. What's scary is that Dick Jauron's decision to fire his offensive coordinator just before the start of the regular season looks brilliant.
That's scary because it makes Dick Jauron look like he knows something about offense. After watching Jauron coach the Bears while I was watching Walt Harris coach Pitt, all I can say is that Dick Jauron is no Walt Harris.
3-7. If you had these numbers flipped, I'd ask what herbal supplements you found your way into out on the left coast...but Tommy, these numbers make me wonder if the pictures of the taps you've been sending me have only been to fool me into thinking you're drinking. Your performance this week is decidedly...sober(ing).
Browns (+3) over BRONCOS: Cleveland is not better than Cincy, the only thing Brady Quinn will be figuring out is how to get traded to whatever team hires fat Charlie after ND fires him, and this was an abysmal money line play. If you weren't on the left coast where nobody puts effort into anything, ever, I'd ask how much effort it takes to be as wrong as you were about this game. There's being a five-letter word that starts with 'w' and rhymes with 'rong,' and then there's making Milton Bradley's perception of reality seem lucid.
3-8. Get me some paddles. I think we're losing him. (And if only we were. Lets be honest, we'd all let him go.)
CHARGERS (-3) over Ravens: The Ravens' defense isn't what it used to be, but it got a huge turnover at a key point late in the game to preserve the win. The Ravens' offense also isn't what it used to be--it has a quarterback who can--and isn't afraid--to win games, and depth at running back.
You may not know this, but Joe Flacco was once a Pittsburgh Panther (my alma mater). And then Dave Wannstedt came to town, wouldn't let Flacco compete for the job, and Flacco transferred to be a Blue Hen at the University of Delaware. At the same time, Wannstedt hired Matt Cavanaugh, who was only recently fired as the Ravens' offensive coordinator because his offense made the Baltimore coroner's office seem vibrant and alive.
Pitt went on to suffer seasons of offensive ineptitude, culminating in Cavanaugh failing to score a single point in the only bowl game he ever made as Pitt's offensive coordinator. Baltimore's offense has steadily improved to becoming a legitimate threat, culminating with Joe Flacco's taking over as QB.
Dave Wannstedt, doing the exact opposite of what successful NFL teams do since 1993.
Tommy Tearass, making the exact opposite of good picks since he learned how to read a betting sheet. 3-9. It's not even sporting to make fun of you right now.
Panthers (+6) over FALCONS: (I forgot this one, so it's going here) Saying that Delhomme would play better wasn't exactly risky--it couldn't get any worse for him, even assuming that Rex Grossman was dressing up as him during his last two games. However, you're dead wrong about the Falcons. The only thing standing between them and the Super Bowl last season was experience and playing on the road.
Do they have the firepower to hang in their with New Orleans? I'm not sold--but I like Turner's ability to run and keep the ball out of Brees' hands. I also think that Tony Gonzalez is a big weapon for Matt Ryan to hang in a firefight with Drew Brees. The Falcons might not win the South, but they're the NFC's second-best team and by a pretty wide margin. Six points was a lot, but to not be sold on the Falcons--I have to wonder if you've been paying attention to the NFL last year or this year.
3-10. Damnit Jim, I'm a doctor, but my last name isn't Kevorkian. If you want to put him out of his misery, you're going to have to do it yourself. Oh? He's doing it for us. Well, that makes it a lot easier. Too easy, in fact.
BEARS (+3) over Steelers: Heyyyyy...you got the most important one (to us) of the week. Did you get the thank you card I'm sending Jeff Reed? I wanted to make sure we both signed it.
There were a few things you were (fortunately) wrong about. Nobody got to score on Nathan Vasher, because I didn't see him on the field (and he's not in the box score, and yes, I checked to make sure he wasn't listed as playing for the other team). You were also wrong about Cutler--that win was redemption.
You were right about Polamalu being more integral to the Steelers defense than Urlacher is to the Bears defense. But that's hardly stellar analysis--Polamalu is the best defensive player in the NFL, and he was replaced by a man with a death wish (seriously, Carter will break his neck if he keeps spearing opposing receivers).
4-10.
Giants (+3) over COWBOYS: Heyyyyy, another one right. Too bad there's only one game left, because let's be honest, you need another three to save face this week.
Amidst all the talk of Dallas losing their home opener in Jerry Jones' Playhouse, it's easy to forget that the Giants had a +4 turnover ratio, with one being a pick six (and another being a blown call away from a pick six), and still needed a last-second FG to win.
If you're a Dallas fan, you still can tell yourself that everything will be all right if Tony Romo doesn't turn the ball over. Of course, that's what all of us Bears fans said about Sexy Rexy two years ago. It might be slightly less delusional for Dallas fans to tell themselves that, but I can't figure out how to measure "slightly" in a small enough measurement to quantify that difference.
If you're a Giants fan--don't let the win keep you from the ledge. You should be out there with Tommy after his picks this week.
5-10.
Colts (-3) over DOLPHINS: My body gave out on me and crashed through this game (and Tommy's fantasy hockey draft. Ooops. I owe you dinner or something for that.)
Looking at the box score, I feel good about that decision. The middle two quarters were field goal or famine, two guys with the same last name ran for TD's, and Marseilles' star midfielder (seriously, who the hell is Pierre Garcon??) caught the winning TD pass, inexplicably not stopping at the half-yard line and waving a white flag until the Miami defense could stop him.
6-10. The record speaks for itself.
And like it or not--week 1 counts. Just ask the 9 NFL teams who won--that you didn't think would win. Also interesting, only one game was decided within the spread.
Who got that one right? Maybe I should be writing on Thursdays instead...
Snoochie Boochies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment