Week two NFL Picks Review
Week two saw me go 8-8 overall, and I currently sit at 18-14 for the season. Here were my misses:
Washington (+6)
Pittsburgh (-1.5)
Denver (-10.5)
Green Bay (+2)
Philadelphia (-3)
Detroit (+9)
Miami (-6.5)
Oakland (+12)
Looking at these games, I'm would say that I'm most surprised by the Denver, Green Bay, Detroit, and Oakland results. I just didn't expect Denver to come out and play that poorly on offense in their home opener against Kansas City, a defense that isn't exactly highly regarded. Maybe KC will be better on D with the hiring of Herm Edwards, a more defensive-minded coach, but most of that performance lies squarely on Denver. Denver was able to run for 145 yards, but one must remember that the game went nearly five quarters, so the raw data is slightly exaggerated. If they'd been able to have any semblance of a pass attack, they would have been able to run much more effectively. I know that I wrote that Denver would be stupid to bench Jake Plummer, but that was assuming that he would play at his established level of performance. One has to wonder if all the calls for Jay Cutler are getting to him and affecting his performance, which, paradoxically, would be the only situation in which I would advocate pulling him. Either way, it looks like Denver is not in a good spot.
Green Bay, Detroit and Oakland also surprised me, not because I thought they would be any good, but because I didn't think they would be this bad. I thought the Detroit and Oakland spreads were entirely too high, because of the relative strength of each team's defense, and the (supposedly) mediocre offenses they were facing. I didn't expect either Detroit or Oakland to win, but I did expect them to cover. Unfortunately, I also didn't expect either the Lion or Raider offenses to prove so inept. In addition, no one expected Chicago to put up 34 points on a Lions defense after they held the Hawks to nine. If I could re-do, these, I would probably go with Chicago, given what we know about their offense, but given the same situation, I would probably go with Oakland again. Twelve points is a huge spread, they have a pretty solid defense, Baltimore is a mediocre offense, and over the course of the season, no offense can possibly be as bad as the Raiders have so far. Can it? Green Bay's situation is just sad. I thought for sure they would win last week outright, but their offense just isn't very good, when you take into account the horrendous New Orleans defense. I was pretty damn close though when I predicted 350 and 3 TD's for Favre. The 340 and 3 he did put up was fairly lackluster though, as it took him 55 attempts, due to an inability by Green Bay to run the ball with any effectiveness.
I know that it sounds like I'm not giving New Orleans any respect, but here's the truth: CSG doesn't care about black people. OK, not really. They may be a little better than I thought pre-season, but any team in the league would look good or even dominant if they had faced Cleveland and Green Bay in the first two weeks. New Orleans squeaked by both teams. They do deserve some credit for winning two road games, which is an accomplishment for anyone, but they're probably the worst 2-0 team the league has seen in some time. Looking at their schedule the rest of the way out, the only games I see them being competitive in are the two games against Tampa Bay and the game at home against San Francisco. Their schedule the rest of the way is actually pretty brutal: two against Atlanta and Carolina, the entire NFC East, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati. That should be rough. I'm still pretty comfortable in my pre-season prediction for them to be under six wins.
Washington and Miami are the teams that I found most disappointing. I wasn't incredibly confident in either pick, but I was expecting a lot more from both teams. I won't harp on it, because I already have, but Washington would be much better off starting Jason Campbell, and I also had the feeling that Clinton Portis would play. Not quite sure what's going on there.
Miami was single-handedly sunk by Daunte Culpepper. Now, I wasn't one the people predicting big things from Miami this season (I'm looking at you, SI), but I thought they'd be solid. Right now, I think they'd be better off without Culpepper starting. We take for granted the recovery and rehabilitation process for professional athletes due to how advanced our sports medicine technologies have become, but the injury Culpepper suffered last year was pretty devestating, and too many people were assuming that he would be back at full strength, playing like a slightly less mobile version of his 2004 self. The way he has played makes it pretty clear that he is still adjusting to his new skill set, post-injury, and that he will need some time to get used to his new immobility.
On a slightly related note, I would say that under bets in the Buffalo games should be good bets for at least the next couple weeks, before perception catches up with their performance. They've got a good defense, and an offense built around ball control and hiding J.P. Losman. They're not going to score a lot of points, or give up a lot, in my opinion. Watch out for big spreads involving them for this reason.
As for Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, nothing about their performances really worried me. I actually thought that Philly's performance in the first three quarters proved that they are for real, before they had the football equivalent of losing ten straight coin flips happen to them. The perception of Pittsburgh should come back down to an earthly level after the loss to Jacksonville and Miami not being as good as people thought they were. Yeah, it's usually not a good idea to hand the Super Bowl to a team that was a six seed last year after week one. Yeah, I'm surprised about that just as much as you.
I haven't had a chance to look at the lines for this week's games yet, but I probably will later tonight. Not sure yet when I'll put up my picks for this week. I think I'll do a couple different things this week. I'm still going to make my picks for each game, but I'm also going to add a "best bets" thing, the games I would feel most comfortable putting actual money on. I think I'll also try to take a look at the over/under and money lines and see if I can unearth some gems there. On to the week two breakdown:
Home vs. Spread: 11-5. Home teams bounce back in a big way. 15-17 for the season. Home teams 17-15 overall.
Favorites vs. Spread: 10-6. Also 15-17 for the season. Favorites 19-13 overall.
AFC/NFC vs. Spread: No interconference games this week. 3-3 for the season. 3-3 overall.
posted by CSG at 2:41 PM
4 Comments:
(1) How dare you post that weird picture the day after I pimp you on my blog. Who the hell is that?
(2) How can you expect Denver to cover a 10.5 point spread on one hand and be shocked when Baltimore covers by 12 on the other? Oakland is one of the worst teams in the league, offensively, and their defense isn't much better. McNair knows how to run an offense and his addition alone makes the Ravens a much better offense than you seem to give them credit for. This game definitely had blowout written all over it. I also expected the Broncos to cover but I'm not necessarily shocked that they didn't. Herm Edwards, IMO, is a horrible coach, conservative to a fault, and he always keeps his teams close enough to lose. Whatever, I just think it's a bit condratictory to look at these two games the way that you looked at them. :)
I think you underestimate New Orleans for sure. Horn is a consistent as the sun rising, Colston is becoming the new Gates for Brees and the Bush-Deuce tandem is a great change of pace that should be able to keep opposing defenses off balance. The Saints have a pretty strong run defense and I think that their home-field advantage this year will be huge. I'll gladly take the over on 7 wins if you want to make a small wager.
I do enjoy the blog. Keep it rollin'.
11:35 PM
Sorry, about the picture, I had to get my Kyle Orton neckbeard fix for the day.
My rationale for the Denver game was that I thought they would bounce back in their home opener after playing so poorly in St. Louis, which is one of the more difficult stadiums to play in in the league, even with the Rams being pretty bad this year. Research has shown (Pro Football Prospectus 2006, I think) that over the last couple years that the Rams defense has been significantly better at home, so in hindsight it wasn't that difficult to see the Broncos struggle there in week one. Kansas City on the other hand, has never been known for their defense, Denver possesses a unique home field advantage due to the elevation, it was unlikely that Kansas City would score many points with one of the fabulous Huard boys at quarterback. Denver would have covered if they'd been able to score 17 points, which just isn't much to ask. I'm not sure about Jake Plummer at all, but I do think he'll bounce back. He started last year pretty badly too, 53% completions, 1 TD and 3 ints, then didn't throw another pick til week 12. I thought he'd bounce back last week, but he didn't. It happens.
With regards to Oakland, I recognize that they are terrible, but I don't think they're quite as terrible as they've looked. I really do think they have a pretty good defense, but it's masked by the fact that their offense keeps giving away the ball in their own territory. Baltimore's first three drives last week started in front of the Oakland 40 yard line, which is absolutely insane, and Oakland ended up holding them to three field goals, which is pretty good considering the circumstances. When you look at the field position they had all game, Baltimore's offense really didn't play all that well. I think they're offense will be good enough to score points and win games, but at the same time they're going to be really dependent on their defense, which I don't think will play quite as well against serious competition. I did think that Oakland's offense would improve a little over week one and put up maybe 10, 13 points, but they couldn't.
I'll definitely take you up on the Saints bet, I think they've beat the two worst teams in the league so far, non-Raiders division, and that things will start looking pretty rough for them when they hit the harder part of their schedule. We may need to define small wager though, as that may have a different meaning for a poker superstar and a starving student.
12:12 PM
cale, i just left a comment but i dont have a user name... so im redoing what i said. anyways this comment is from rudee. I want to know what your pick is this weekend for the hawks, giants game. it is a tough game.. i have to say the hawks even though our line is sketch right now. what are your thoughts?
1:52 AM
Hey Rudee, good to hear from you. I'm definitely going with the Hawks this week. I fact I'm probably going to make it a best bet. People will remember the Giants comeback from last week, but they forget that the Giants got absolutely killed for three quarters last week, then had a bunch of crazy plays go their way, recovered a bunch of fumbles, got the benefit of a couple calls/moronic penalties by the Eagles, essentially a lot of lucky plays ended up going their way, plays that don't necessarily reflect their true skill level. Also, the Eagles couldn't run the ball at all to run out the clock because Andy Reid kept calling the same run into the middle for zero yards. I don't see the Seahawks running into this problem if we're ahead. The Hawks have a better defense than the Eagles, in my opinion, and I don't see them getting burnt so bad if they can't get a pass rush. I also think that the Hawks will be able to pass on the Giants all day long because the Giants have been terrible against the pass so far. I think that the Seahawks win, and that the game won't be as close as most people expect.
I should have the rest of my picks up by the end of today, or Friday morning at the lastest.
11:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home