With almost all the faves winning in week 10, there hasn't been any major shuffling in the order since last week, except Cincy. Cincy surprised us and had another poor showing, so they're down all the way to #19 for now. I thought they were better than this, but I can't ignore results.
Having KC way up in #2 seems wrong, as they're not off the most impressive result, but I think I have to keep em up until they falter. Seattle lost Harvin and have some starter injuries (DB Chancellor, LB Wagner, and OL Carpenter), so they're not as good as they used to be. NE may not have played KC for realsies and may be better now than earlier in the season, but I'll have to wait for more proof that NE is better than KC. Sagarin ratings have KC in #2 spot too, so maybe it's not too outlandish. But, then again, they have Mia in #8, so who knows, lol
My ranking after week 10:
1. Denver (7-2) 2. Kansas City (6-3) 3. Seattle (6-3) 4. New England (7-2) 5. Philadelphia (7-2) 6. Arizona (8-1)
7. San Francisco (5-4) 8. Indianapolis (6-3) 9. Dallas (7-3) 10. Detroit (7-2) 11. Green Bay (6-3) 12. Baltimore (6-4)
13. New Orleans (4-5) 14. Pittsburgh (6-4) 15. Miami (5-4) 16. San Diego (5-4) 17. Buffalo (5-4) 18. Cleveland (6-3) 19. Cincinnati (5-3-1) 20. Houston (4-5) 21. NY Giants (3-6) 22. St. Louis (3-6) 23. Carolina (3-6-1) 24. Atlanta (3-6) 25. Washington (3-6) 26. Chicago (3-6) 27. Minnesota (4-5) 28. NY Jets (2-8)
29. Tennessee (2-7) 30. Tampa Bay (1-8) 31. Oakland (0-9) 32. Jacksonville (1-9)
Last week's thread: https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=21&sub=101986800
With almost all the faves winning in week 10, there hasn't been any major shuffling in the order since last week, except Cincy. Cincy surprised us and had another poor showing, so they're down all the way to #19 for now. I thought they were better than this, but I can't ignore results.
Having KC way up in #2 seems wrong, as they're not off the most impressive result, but I think I have to keep em up until they falter. Seattle lost Harvin and have some starter injuries (DB Chancellor, LB Wagner, and OL Carpenter), so they're not as good as they used to be. NE may not have played KC for realsies and may be better now than earlier in the season, but I'll have to wait for more proof that NE is better than KC. Sagarin ratings have KC in #2 spot too, so maybe it's not too outlandish. But, then again, they have Mia in #8, so who knows, lol
My ranking after week 10:
1. Denver (7-2) 2. Kansas City (6-3) 3. Seattle (6-3) 4. New England (7-2) 5. Philadelphia (7-2) 6. Arizona (8-1)
7. San Francisco (5-4) 8. Indianapolis (6-3) 9. Dallas (7-3) 10. Detroit (7-2) 11. Green Bay (6-3) 12. Baltimore (6-4)
13. New Orleans (4-5) 14. Pittsburgh (6-4) 15. Miami (5-4) 16. San Diego (5-4) 17. Buffalo (5-4) 18. Cleveland (6-3) 19. Cincinnati (5-3-1) 20. Houston (4-5) 21. NY Giants (3-6) 22. St. Louis (3-6) 23. Carolina (3-6-1) 24. Atlanta (3-6) 25. Washington (3-6) 26. Chicago (3-6) 27. Minnesota (4-5) 28. NY Jets (2-8)
29. Tennessee (2-7) 30. Tampa Bay (1-8) 31. Oakland (0-9) 32. Jacksonville (1-9)
Last week's thread: https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=21&sub=101986800
3* Cin -6 - L - Wow, totally capped the motivations wrong and totally capped the fundamentals wrong. The nice thing about an embarrassingly bad loss is that it's just 1 loss. 3* Atl -1½ - W - Yay, Atlanta still believing. it wasn't an easy-breezy win, but it wasn't in much doubt. 4* Sea -9 - W - I wasn't quite sure what to make of the first half, but I'm thinking the Seahawks finally woke up in the 2nd half and may keep it going now.. ?? 3* SF/NO u 49 - L - Screwed by going into OT... oh, well,, it happens. Well, it mustn't have been a good call anyway, since SF was able to score 21 in the first half. I didn't quite expect that after last week. 4* Den/Oak u 50½ - L - It turns out holding your breath and expecting Broncos not running up the score isn't a good idea... and much worse vs a team which is very much prone to getting blown out. Being brave by jumping on front of a moving train just isn't smart. It's amazing how much clearer things are in hindsight! lol
Week 10: 2-3 -4.0 units Posted YTD: 11-7-0 (61%) +14.8 units
Dear Diary: It's kinda frustrating to see a lot of obvious picks hit this week, while
I pick some dodgy looking over/under which I'll have to sweat out.. so I
think I have to adjust my filters a little bit to allow myself to pick
some of the easy ones. It's a balancing act, though.
3* Cin -6 - L - Wow, totally capped the motivations wrong and totally capped the fundamentals wrong. The nice thing about an embarrassingly bad loss is that it's just 1 loss. 3* Atl -1½ - W - Yay, Atlanta still believing. it wasn't an easy-breezy win, but it wasn't in much doubt. 4* Sea -9 - W - I wasn't quite sure what to make of the first half, but I'm thinking the Seahawks finally woke up in the 2nd half and may keep it going now.. ?? 3* SF/NO u 49 - L - Screwed by going into OT... oh, well,, it happens. Well, it mustn't have been a good call anyway, since SF was able to score 21 in the first half. I didn't quite expect that after last week. 4* Den/Oak u 50½ - L - It turns out holding your breath and expecting Broncos not running up the score isn't a good idea... and much worse vs a team which is very much prone to getting blown out. Being brave by jumping on front of a moving train just isn't smart. It's amazing how much clearer things are in hindsight! lol
Week 10: 2-3 -4.0 units Posted YTD: 11-7-0 (61%) +14.8 units
Dear Diary: It's kinda frustrating to see a lot of obvious picks hit this week, while
I pick some dodgy looking over/under which I'll have to sweat out.. so I
think I have to adjust my filters a little bit to allow myself to pick
some of the easy ones. It's a balancing act, though.
It's dangerous to go against strong numbers that lean a certain way and knowledge that the match-up has conservative offenses with good defenses,, but I can't shake this feeling that it's going to go opposite of the obvious. I suppose it's part motivation, part expecting teams to switch things up, part expecting law of averages to turn things different, part expecting turnovers when defenses are better than offenses, and a very small part going with a score-happy season.
It's dangerous to go against strong numbers that lean a certain way and knowledge that the match-up has conservative offenses with good defenses,, but I can't shake this feeling that it's going to go opposite of the obvious. I suppose it's part motivation, part expecting teams to switch things up, part expecting law of averages to turn things different, part expecting turnovers when defenses are better than offenses, and a very small part going with a score-happy season.
I'm adding another unit to the pick, as the line went down to 41. I don't know whether the money poured in on the under, but it's understandable why the line went down, so I'm not too worried.
I'm adding another unit to the pick, as the line went down to 41. I don't know whether the money poured in on the under, but it's understandable why the line went down, so I'm not too worried.
Oh, cool. I wasn't sure anyone was checking it out for whatever it's worth.
Yep, like I said, KC being second best team in all of NFL doesn't *seem* quite right. But, every so-called top team has blemishes against them, but not so much with KC after their opening game.
The blemishes: Denver -- got routed by NE Seattle -- not very good results vs lowly StL & Car and better Dal & SD; they're not as good they used to be last year and even in early season NE -- got routed by our KC Phi -- nothing too major... we'll see how Mark Sanchez fairs vs better Ds, but it seems they're still a top team Az -- got routed by Den; just lost Carson Palmer SF -- got routed by Den; have had problems on offense Indy -- got routed by Pitt Dallas -- 2 double-digit losses at home & these final scores don't show how out of hand these games were Detroit -- not bad, but not enough impressive wins GB -- despite their impressive beating up of weak opponents, they got routed twice
So, lack of blemishes in this league full of parity is an indicator in itself. They have 2½ impressive wins. Denver might not have brought 100% to that game against them, but it's still a decent indicator. I'm not ready to say NE is better than KC quite yet.
Also, these 2 rankings also have them at #2, so I may not be too out-to-lunch with this, lol: https://www.covers.com/Sports/NFL/PowerRankings https://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/sagarin/
Oh, cool. I wasn't sure anyone was checking it out for whatever it's worth.
Yep, like I said, KC being second best team in all of NFL doesn't *seem* quite right. But, every so-called top team has blemishes against them, but not so much with KC after their opening game.
The blemishes: Denver -- got routed by NE Seattle -- not very good results vs lowly StL & Car and better Dal & SD; they're not as good they used to be last year and even in early season NE -- got routed by our KC Phi -- nothing too major... we'll see how Mark Sanchez fairs vs better Ds, but it seems they're still a top team Az -- got routed by Den; just lost Carson Palmer SF -- got routed by Den; have had problems on offense Indy -- got routed by Pitt Dallas -- 2 double-digit losses at home & these final scores don't show how out of hand these games were Detroit -- not bad, but not enough impressive wins GB -- despite their impressive beating up of weak opponents, they got routed twice
So, lack of blemishes in this league full of parity is an indicator in itself. They have 2½ impressive wins. Denver might not have brought 100% to that game against them, but it's still a decent indicator. I'm not ready to say NE is better than KC quite yet.
Also, these 2 rankings also have them at #2, so I may not be too out-to-lunch with this, lol: https://www.covers.com/Sports/NFL/PowerRankings https://www.usatoday.com/sports/nfl/sagarin/
Oy, how silly was that TNF Over pick? The game went close to how conventional wisdom dictated (I only say "close", because I don't know we could've expected Buffalo offense to look quite that bad). Anyway, being contrarian and reading into lines seems like a bad idea this year with over/unders. I've actually tracked obvious picks since week 4 and up to last week, obvious O/Us were 25-15-1 (I didn't realize this until I just summed it up now.. whoops). I remember it differently 5-10 years ago, but now-a-years, it seems it's good to "keep it simple, stupid" -- no need to get too philosophical about it, lol.
Onto picks...
2* NO -7 -105 -- The Bengals' last game shows us there's something wrong with them right now and that those poor results in Oct do mean something, even though they had AJ back. The line may not be a good value, but NO has some momentum going.
3* Sea/KC u 42½ This is an important game, but I don't think these teams will feel the need to "go for it" and will lean on running the ball and will keep it relatively conservative. KC has a good D. Seattle D may not be as good, but I think they're better than their points-against. The weather is a tiny factor in this one too, so the game may go more KC's way.
4* SF/NYG u 45 NYG has been allowing a lot of scoring recently, but they've had to face 4 straight good offenses. Their D may be average at best, but I don't think they're as bad as they've looked. SF O hasn't looked very good lately, so I don't think they can blow out NYG right now. NYG RB Jennings coming back from injury may give them a chance to keep those NYGs in the game.
4* Oak/SD u 44½ SD has lost momentum recently and that goose egg in their last game has gotta mean something for their scoring ability right now. Ryan Mathews is back for SD, which should give them an incentive to run the ball a little bit more. SD's D may be weakened by injuries, but whoever they have in there now is likely still better than Oak's O -and- I don't think they'll be giving away free passes after the team's drubbing in Mia and the scare Oak gave them the last time.
Yeah, yeah... I like my unders :-). I'll be back tomorrow with Washington and Philly.
Oy, how silly was that TNF Over pick? The game went close to how conventional wisdom dictated (I only say "close", because I don't know we could've expected Buffalo offense to look quite that bad). Anyway, being contrarian and reading into lines seems like a bad idea this year with over/unders. I've actually tracked obvious picks since week 4 and up to last week, obvious O/Us were 25-15-1 (I didn't realize this until I just summed it up now.. whoops). I remember it differently 5-10 years ago, but now-a-years, it seems it's good to "keep it simple, stupid" -- no need to get too philosophical about it, lol.
Onto picks...
2* NO -7 -105 -- The Bengals' last game shows us there's something wrong with them right now and that those poor results in Oct do mean something, even though they had AJ back. The line may not be a good value, but NO has some momentum going.
3* Sea/KC u 42½ This is an important game, but I don't think these teams will feel the need to "go for it" and will lean on running the ball and will keep it relatively conservative. KC has a good D. Seattle D may not be as good, but I think they're better than their points-against. The weather is a tiny factor in this one too, so the game may go more KC's way.
4* SF/NYG u 45 NYG has been allowing a lot of scoring recently, but they've had to face 4 straight good offenses. Their D may be average at best, but I don't think they're as bad as they've looked. SF O hasn't looked very good lately, so I don't think they can blow out NYG right now. NYG RB Jennings coming back from injury may give them a chance to keep those NYGs in the game.
4* Oak/SD u 44½ SD has lost momentum recently and that goose egg in their last game has gotta mean something for their scoring ability right now. Ryan Mathews is back for SD, which should give them an incentive to run the ball a little bit more. SD's D may be weakened by injuries, but whoever they have in there now is likely still better than Oak's O -and- I don't think they'll be giving away free passes after the team's drubbing in Mia and the scare Oak gave them the last time.
Yeah, yeah... I like my unders :-). I'll be back tomorrow with Washington and Philly.
Looks like the GB line won't go back up to 6, so adding...
4* Phi +4½ I have Philly as the better team, even if it seems like a mismatch at QB; I'm not worried about Lambeau home field advantage too much, because Philly teams seem to do relatively well on the road year after year for some reason. I'm not worried about a weather advantage for this one, either.
Looks like the GB line won't go back up to 6, so adding...
4* Phi +4½ I have Philly as the better team, even if it seems like a mismatch at QB; I'm not worried about Lambeau home field advantage too much, because Philly teams seem to do relatively well on the road year after year for some reason. I'm not worried about a weather advantage for this one, either.
4* Wsh -7 Washington the better team and probably in a better state of mind. It may be a lot of points for a mediocre team to give up, but we can't let oddsmakers trick us to leave money on the table.
4* Wsh -7 Washington the better team and probably in a better state of mind. It may be a lot of points for a mediocre team to give up, but we can't let oddsmakers trick us to leave money on the table.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.