Here are the picks I like this week:
New Orleans -13.5 at St. Louis
Tampa Bay +10 at Miami
Denver -3.5 at Washington
Green Bay +3 vs. Dallas
Who ya got?
NFL Week 10 Picks
In lieu of linking to the increasily unreliable Bill Simmons and his MIA picks column, here is a link to Rick Reilly's most recent column which cracked me up.
Here are the picks I like this week:
New Orleans -13.5 at St. Louis
Tampa Bay +10 at Miami
Denver -3.5 at Washington
Green Bay +3 vs. Dallas
Who ya got?
Here are the picks I like this week:
New Orleans -13.5 at St. Louis
Tampa Bay +10 at Miami
Denver -3.5 at Washington
Green Bay +3 vs. Dallas
Who ya got?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also think Baltimore has a good chance of exceeding their -11 line vs. Cleveland, but I don't fully trust them laying that many points yet. Kansas City +1.5 at Oakland is interesting but it's the Craptastic AFC West LoserBowl and I trust neither team. New England +3 at Indy should be a great game to watch on I think Sunday night.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the above lines need attention - what the hell is going on with Denver -3.5 at Washington and Green Bay +3 at Dallas? Did everyone decide those teams were overrated when I wasn't looking? Or is it that everyone decided Washington and Dallas were secretly good? Cause Washington nearly lost to St. Louis a few weeks ago and Dallas was also stinking up a storm until recently. What is the story?
Quick responses:
ReplyDelete1) Dallas has figured its shit out, so them -3 at home isn't a bad line.
2) Denver -3.5 is an AWESOME line, in my opinion. I know the Skins defense is legit, but Denver's is better. Denver's offense is also better than the Skins. I see this as a 20-10 win for the Broncos.
They're one of my 3 picks this week, along with:
- Colts -3: I think Indy is the better team on a neutral field, so I'll lay the points and hope they win what appears to be a very entertaining game.
- Niners -3.5: This one I'm a bit more hesitant on, but I think Gore tears up the Bears softer than expected front 7 (think they miss Urlacher yet?), while Smith doesn't get nearly as unlucky as he did last week (2 of those 3 INTs were tipped balls).
I think the Green Bay-Dallas line seems right, but I will gladly take Denver -3.5. I do have confidence in Baltimore demolishing Cleveland and I'd take them if they were giving 17...but I'll settle for Baltimore -11. I think Ray Rice will carry my fantasy team this week. I will also take:
ReplyDeleteNew Orleans -13.5
Cincinnati +7
Tampa Bay +10
That New Orleans line can't be high enough, even if the Saints temporarily traded Reggie Bush to the Hornets as I suggested earlier today.
ReplyDeleteSame goes for Baltimore-Cleveland. Brady Quinn versus Ray Lewis and Ed Reed's Fantasy Bonanza? No chance, Browns.
I'm with Scotty; I think Smith rights the ship tonight against a Bears D that isn't quite as good as people think it is (hellooooo, Cardinals 41, Bears 21). They weren't who we thought they WEREN'T!
Remember, Tony Romo is playing in Green Bay this week. That also plays into the Packers only being three point underdogs.
ReplyDeleteUm, so apparently Thursday Night Football started last night? There are fantasy lineup implications that I was not prepared for.
ReplyDeleteUnlike myself, MP knew this and wrote "tonight" above... but I am too dense to have noticed
Thoughts on your gutty 10-6 win over da Bears?
A little uglier than I thought it needed to be (receivers were slipping all over the place - perhaps the slight sprinkle we had the night before had something to do with this?), but I'll take it any day. We're built to win these types of games. There's no way in hell we're winning a 42-38 game anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteOur D stepped up HUGE! I was a bit nervous going up against Hester as we're not the quickest secondary around, but they kept him in relative check. While the Bears were able to rack up some decent yardage (another 300+ yard game from Cutler), this was due to a) our offense not being able to get a single thing going, and b) our bend, don't break mentality.
That said, I'm concerned about Smith's ability to handle the pressures of an NFL defense. It almost seems that he's guessing how to avoid the rush, instead of understanding where to move w/in the pocket. Once he's out of the pocket, his footwork is great, and can make some solid plays (good example at the 2:25 mark of this recap of the Titans game last week).
One final note: it scares the crap out of me that the Broncos line has actually dropped to -3.5; what am I missing that has forced the books to shorten the line? Or, are wiseguys and/or the public over-valuing the Skins D?
Scotty, I'd like to commend you for being dead-on about Alex Smith and for introducing the phrase "held in relative check" to our collective lexicon.
ReplyDeleteSmith is going to have to learn how to move under pressure, because until Crabs develops as a viable 2nd option to VD, nobody but nobody is going to lock down on our receivers instead of going right after Smith.
Last night's game came down to Smith good enough and Cutler very, very bad.
I never get tired of the Crabs and VD jokes
ReplyDeleteWas your D really that good, or did Cutler just give you some INTs? I'm working to remove all of my previous statements from the record about how dumb it was of the Broncos to trade him. No I don't want to talk about it.
I am also confused by the Broncos line - I am curious to see how that plays out. By the way Simmons posted his column today. He is not as outraged byt his line as we are, but he did pick Denver.
Speaking of Simmons' article, he always has at least one comment that gives me a good chuckle. I'm not finished, but I think the leader in the clubhouse this week was in reference to The Steven Jacksons:
ReplyDelete"If Jackson keeps the Rams in this specific game -- after all, anyone can run on the Saints, right? -- he has to be considered an MVP candidate. Without him, the 1-7 Rams would be minus-5 and 13 right now."
I love the concept of a team negative in the wins column. It could work in reverse as well. If the Colts were to play in the NFC West, would they be 13 and -5 right now?
And it's not s if that quote from Simmons was all that hilarious; he just has a quirky way with words.
ReplyDeleteMy first experience with this joke was when Simmons used the NBA Trade Machine on ESPN.com to add LeBron and some other pieces to the Knicks, thereby adding a mountain of "adjusted wins/losses" to the Knicks and projecting their record as 89 and -7. I love that joke.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jenn with two n's.
ReplyDeleteBYE (-3) over Raiders
Some classic, simple, always funny Simmons jokes.
His Miller Great Call of the Week about the guy from Survivor was so completely off the rails of an NFL picks column that I loved it
ReplyDeleteJessica and I were going crazy last night over exactly what he was talking about.
ReplyDeleteHis comments on fading sports hate made me weep from sympathy.
ReplyDeleteOh well, there's always Matt Leinart & the entire Dodgers franchise.
Apparently I don't have nearly as much sports hate as Simmons or you two.
ReplyDeleteSimbo agrees with me about the Raiders-Chiefs game being "ungamble-able". Just wanted to share.
I had no problem with Belichik's decision. Let's say Peyton Manning gets the ball at his own 30 with over two minutes left with one timeout and the two minute warning. How often does he score there? 60% of the time? 75%? So punting the ball means they have a 40% chance of winning. Now let's say they go for it and don't make it, Peyton score 80-90% of the time? Now what is the Patriots success rate on 4th and 2? I'm going to guess over 60%.
ReplyDeleteBased on those assumptions, the Patriots had a 40% chance of winning by punting and a 54% chance of winning by going for it (60% x 90%). While those numbers may not be accurate, the concept is. Now he lost and you can criticize him for that, but I have no problem with the decision to go for it on 4th down.
(And you don't have to tell me if TMQ writes about it tomorrow.)
I was 2-for-2; right about Tampa Bay and Green Bay, wrong about New Orleans and Denver.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Aaron, I think the principle you espouse is a mathematical way of saying that Peyton Manning will beat you. So don't let him have the ball. That's what Belichick was trying to accomplish, it's just that they failed at it.
Simmons wrote that if Steven Jackson singlehandedly keeps St Louis in the Rams-Saints game that he deserves MVP consideration. He had a TD, 131 yards on 26 rushes, and 45 yards on 9 catches. Does he deserve MVP consideration?
ReplyDeleteRoyce, you were 2 and 2. If you were 2-for-2, you would have only made two picks and gotten them both correct.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind Steven Jackson being in a conversation where valuable is "what would the team look like with an average player at this position?" MVP style conversation. But they only have 1 win, it's not like they can get much worse. If he was single-handedly carrying them to the middle of the pack, then he might enter Peyton Manning valuable territory.
A solid point, I was 2-for-4
ReplyDeleteMy fantasy season is parallel to the Rams' season - Steven Jackson is completely carrying me to a 2-and-7 record so far this year.
I'm sorry, but the MVP conversation is over. It's Peyton Manning - and it should be unanimous.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I bet Belichick was thinking, if I may be so bold: if my team can't get 2 yards to win this game, then we're not winning anything at all this year and it won't matter whether we get this 1st Down.
Think about how their failure to convert can domino everything else for the rest of this season (yes, domino was just a verb there): no 1st down --> no win --> no AFC Home Field --> No Super Bowl.
Other than that, I like Aaron's TMQ-like, mathematical take on things. If Indy gets Home Field, they are going to the Super Bowl. But only if Garcon plays better than he did last night. Had Belichick not gambled, we would be dissecting every Garcon dropped pass or wrong route last night.
Did you just pin Indy's Super Bowl hopes to Pierre Garcon? A guy named Pierre? Yes that's a dig at the French
ReplyDeleteMais oui! Makes sense, right? Secondaries will key on Wayne (though, how that guy always manages to get open is astounding - you'd think teams still thought Vintage Marvin Harrison was still out there) and Clark, and if Garcon (means "boy") can make some big plays, they don't even need Addai to run that much.
ReplyDeleteIs that a subtle Pulp Ficton reference there?
ReplyDeleteMy, my...that is a tasty burger.
Ahahaha I love how you jumped right to one of the great lines - "that IS a tasty burger". "Do they speak English in What?"
ReplyDeleteWayne gets open a ton because he and Manning are have a mind-meld at this point; their timing is unbelievable. I see about five plays a game that blow me away because of how well Manning anticipates Wayne.
Good catch on the PF reference, Aaron.
ReplyDeleteThe QB/WR Mind-Meld is crazy to watch. Brady & Moss had it two years ago, PEY had it with Marvin and now Reggie. Who else?