Was Katelynn Saying "Booo" or "Booo-urns?"

TT: Hey babbling gump, are they booing me?

BG: No, they're saying 'Boo-urns, Boo-urns.'

TT: Are you saying 'Boo' or 'Boo-urns.'

Hans Moleman: I was saying "Boo-urns."

The rest of us (including one commenter) are booing yet another pathetic week of picks from Mr. Tearass, who went 6-8 this week. Let's start where Tommy did--with tonight's game:

CHARGERS (-3.5) over Broncos.

The difference in this game entirely can be explained by each team's offensive lines. Rivers was sacked a career-high 5 times. There are trimmers that have given Kyle Orton's neckbeard a closer shave than the San Diego D gave him tonight. The Denver offense is scarily balanced, and their defense, save a few bad pass interference calls, looked fine without Brian Dawkins.

So, with tonight's road win--and Oakland's road win in Philly--it might be time to hop on the Radio Flyer and ride it in every game but @ Baltimore, and the two against each of the Mannings, right?

Nope. I'm going to go back to something that I said week 2 about the Chiefs/Ravens game: don't count special teams TD's in making predictions about teams going forward. If Denver's two return TD's are taken off the board (but yes, I know, what's to say they wouldn't have scored on those possessions anyways?), their offensive output looks decidedly more mediocre.

But it also looks balanced--29 rushes at RB and 29 passes from Orton. Denver isn't going to blow teams out, which makes them iffy to cover but a great pick with points. And this is why Tommy should've stuck with Denver and why he failed to reach .500 this week. 0-1.

Chiefs (+6.5) over REDSKINS: Tommy got one right in every respect. But it's still going to be a few more weeks before this blind squirrel finds his second nut. The Chiefs were safe at +6.5, and probably the best dog on the money line. This game was so ugly that even the NFL Red Zone studio guy didn't want to show any more of it than they had to show. 1-1.

BENGALS (-5) over Texans: Oops. But I don't blame you too much. The Bengals are enigmatic to say the least--a late win over the Steelers to a last second FG in OT to beat the Browns, then hanging with the Ravens all game to win late, to letting Matt Schaub and Steve Slaton have their way? The only moral of these stories is that if the Bengals win, they do it late and not by much.

Which is probably why the Texans and 5 were a good pick. So yeah--actually, I do blame you for not seeing a blatantly obvious trend and betting it. 1-2.

STEELERS (-14) over Browns: Haven't you learned that big favorites from Pittsburgh don't cover? Or are you intelligently not applying your March Madness experience to the NFL? This is twice that the Steelers failed to cover against the league's worst.

Again, there's a trend here--but since you ignored it three times in the Bengals' case, I bet you can ignore it three times here too. 1-3.

Ravens (+3) over VIKINGS: Tommy takes the points and wins. But the Ravens kicker shanks a gimme FG and fails. Vegas had this game picked perfectly, as it ends up, and Tommy found a way to win. The Ravens probably were the safest dog on the money line, although I doubt they had the reward the Chiefs had. I have a feeling that a lot of tears were shed in Vegas as the FG went wide-left. But this is the spread and not the money line, and a 1 point win still counts. 2-3.

Rams (+9.5) over JAGUARS: The rhyme and reason to Jax is that they're bad. Their two wins came against an atrocious abomination (see the post below) of a Titans team, and in a shootout against the Texans. 9.5 was way too many points to give to St. Louis--and this almost was the money line pick of the week (again, see the post below). Almost insightful analysis from Tommy for a 3-3 record.

SAINTS (-3) over Giants: Eli Manning and the Giants' D are obviously not 100%. But that doesn't explain the ass-whoopin that the Saints laid on the Giants. The bye that the Saints had in week 5 does. Of course, you can say that the Giants had a virtual bye in Oakland in week 5. You'd be right--and given the outcome, you'd be right to say that it looks like the Giants spent too much time preparing for the Raiders.

Just don't tell that to the Eagles. 4-3.

Panthers (-3) over BUCCANEERS: All I have to say about this game is that 1. I still don't know who TB's QB is, and 2. This was a really shitty week to face DeAngelo Williams in one fantasy league while leaving him on the bench in another. Fuck. 5-3

PACKERS (-13.5) over Lions: I can't name the Lions' third string QB, but the Packers' defense did a good job of finding him and sacking him. At least the Bears get as many free wins as the Packers and Vikings do. 6-3 (but don't worry, reality comes calling riiiiiiiight now)

Eagles (-14) over RAIDERS: There's always one game on the Eagles' schedule that they should win easily but fail to win. Case in point--the tie against the Bungles. This is the Eagles' giant hiccup, and it could prove costly in a conference where Atlanta, and two of the three non-Lions teams in the NFC North are the competition for a wild card spot.

Andy Reid is safe, even if the Eagles miss the playoffs, but if they miss it because of this game, his ass should be canned, preferably in a Campbell's Chunky Soup can. Emphasis on "chunky." 6-4

SEAHAWKS (-3) over Cardinals: The Hasselbeck at home theory has a problem: you developed it after a convincing win over a very bad Jacksonville team. This formula is so simple that it fails to account for the quality of the opponent. The Cardinals, if you didn't know, nearly won the Super Bowl last year, and they have a potent offense.

The last time I checked, Hasselbeck doesn't play defense, and the Cardinals are all about offense. Awful theory gets awful results--imagine that. 6-5.

JETS (-9.5) over Bills: Apparently Matt Sanchez needs time to adjust to New York falls and winters. It's not Southern California. It's also not every day that a QB earns fantasy owners negative points and frustrates bettors and survivor pools to no end. The only reason why this was a bad pick, that I can see, is that the Bills have hung around more opponents than they haven't, and 9.5 points was a lot. 6-6

Titans (+9) over PATRIOTS: See the post below--I've already beaten the Titan horse deader than anything in Vincent Vega's and Jules Winfield's trunk. Still, it was strangely amusing to watch one team overcome natural obstacles and succeed, while the other team let nature crush what little, tiny bit of their souls that remained. 6-7

Bears (+3) over FALCONS: Sadly, the Bears came off their bye week not significantly healthier and with an offensive line that is as dumb and incapable of blocking as ever. Two red zone turnovers (and there have been way too many this season) and a failure by Orlando Pace to know what the snap count was on a key 4th and 1 with less than a minute left (that would've undoubtedly set up 1st and goal and 3-4 shots at the end zone) cost the Bears what was a very winnable game against a team that is competing for the wild card.

On the bright side, you were right about Tony Gonzalez raping and pillaging the Bears' defense.

6-8. Sometimes I wonder if you're trying to be this mediocre, then I realize that it's you.