Early Week 2 NFL Picks

[NajdorfDefense]

Distractions <> overlook.

Teams do get distracted. Week 2 seems like the sort of time that can happen, as opposed to the playoffs. You don't think the coaching staff has had to deal with non-Chargers issues this week? Somehow I think NEP has had other problems they've had to waste time on instead of spending 100% of their time on game-planning, right?

Not to mention, perhaps their O won't be up to their usual world-class standard now that Coach Cheatypants McHoodieVest has been caught stealing defensive signals. Perhaps.

If one team is preparing like this game is their Super Bowl, and the other isn't, the first team has an advantage this week. Plain and simple. Pretending otherwise is foolish.

Of course, you still have to turn that into points on the scoreboard.

[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention, perhaps their O won't be up to their usual world-class standard now that Coach Cheatypants McHoodieVest has been caught stealing defensive signals. Perhaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is the most overlooked factor by the market. Does anyone really have any clue how this can actually impact the Pats?

Someone smarter and with more caring than me want to do an analysis on Pats offensive production in the first half of games vs. Pats offensive production in the second half of games?

- C -

[rsigley]

[ QUOTE ]
baltimore -6 (-110) 1st half

[/ QUOTE ]

buffalo +10 (-110)
rams -3 (-110)
seahawks -3 (+105)

ytd: 1-2-0 -2.2u

[Mediocre_Player]

I thought the whole deal with signal stealing was it would be a major advantage for the 2nd time you play that team during the season (ie a division opponent)

Those signals were taped and decoded .... not used during the game itself.

[whatifbets]

Only one pick today, SF+3 - seems like I'm the only one picking the 9ers today, but ah well...

[Assani Fisher]

ATL +10: Jacksonville is overrated. They've lost 4 in a row. They got manhandled last week. This will be low scoring, 10 should be enough.

KC +12.5: KC really didn't lose that much from last year...people are underrating them. I think they'll win 7 games or so. Chicago's offense is dreadful. Another low scoring game, and 12.5 is too much.

Pit -10: I think Pit is a top 5 team. Went 15-1 3 years ago, SB champs 2 year ago, last year QB got hurt and coach retired and everything fell apart. They represent good value early in the season imo.

All lines taken from MGM sportsbook. $125 wagered on each.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
the saints have something to prove after last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to pick on you, but god I hate this logic. Also hate the "they're angry" or "they have to win this game" type of logic.


Please explain to me why N.O. has something to prove after losing in week 1 but TB doesn't.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am waiting for Cleveland to get to 7 then I am taking them.

This spread was 3.5 before the week one games. Now it is possibly going to get up to 7! Why? Because after week one the Browns are being undervalued (some, they still arent very good). But the Bengals are overvalued. I see them as average. They needed 6 turnovers and a crap call to squeak out a home win (against a good team though). The Bengals do not have a good D. It was bad last year and the personel has not improved. Meanwhile, the Browns D is underrated and can stop teams as long as they dont start every series on their own 20 yard line.

In summary, this line is a complete overreaction to week one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would buy this argument if we were talking about a team other than the Browns. Miami maybe, or hell even Oakland. But the Browns are god awful.

Even the guys posting above saying the Saints are not a lock, I agree with that. I still like the Saints, but its not a lock.

However the Bengals covering 6.5 in Cleveland? If that is not a lock, what is? What has Cleveland shown last year and last week that makes them even a consideration for your money this week? I just dont see any arguments, please tell me some if you have them.

I do not post alot in the sports betting section so I dont expect my opinion to be respected. I can say that I have been a profitable NFL better the last two years(im probably on a heater), but I havent posted my picks here so I realize my opinion doesnt have much weight, which is cool. However the bottom line here, is that in my opinion I do not see how the Bengals are not a mortal lock to cover. Just like the Steelers were a mortal lock last week, the Bengals are a mortal lock this week. Its not because of any overvaluing the bengals, its because the Browns are that bad. They may be the worst team in the entire league.

And I also hate to use the term lock, but they do happen once in a while imo. And the Steelers were one last week, and the Bengals are this week.

And if I am wrong, I will gladly taking some berating and insults on Monday.

Other than that there are not many other games that I like other than the Saints -3 that I got in on early since I figured it would go up. And also the Cowboys -3.5 I like a little bit.



[/ QUOTE ]

Me thinks that you underrate home field advantage in the NFL.

[CutCreator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am waiting for Cleveland to get to 7 then I am taking them.

This spread was 3.5 before the week one games. Now it is possibly going to get up to 7! Why? Because after week one the Browns are being undervalued (some, they still arent very good). But the Bengals are overvalued. I see them as average. They needed 6 turnovers and a crap call to squeak out a home win (against a good team though). The Bengals do not have a good D. It was bad last year and the personel has not improved. Meanwhile, the Browns D is underrated and can stop teams as long as they dont start every series on their own 20 yard line.

In summary, this line is a complete overreaction to week one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would buy this argument if we were talking about a team other than the Browns. Miami maybe, or hell even Oakland. But the Browns are god awful.

Even the guys posting above saying the Saints are not a lock, I agree with that. I still like the Saints, but its not a lock.

However the Bengals covering 6.5 in Cleveland? If that is not a lock, what is? What has Cleveland shown last year and last week that makes them even a consideration for your money this week? I just dont see any arguments, please tell me some if you have them.

I do not post alot in the sports betting section so I dont expect my opinion to be respected. I can say that I have been a profitable NFL better the last two years(im probably on a heater), but I havent posted my picks here so I realize my opinion doesnt have much weight, which is cool. However the bottom line here, is that in my opinion I do not see how the Bengals are not a mortal lock to cover. Just like the Steelers were a mortal lock last week, the Bengals are a mortal lock this week. Its not because of any overvaluing the bengals, its because the Browns are that bad. They may be the worst team in the entire league.

And I also hate to use the term lock, but they do happen once in a while imo. And the Steelers were one last week, and the Bengals are this week.

And if I am wrong, I will gladly taking some berating and insults on Monday.

Other than that there are not many other games that I like other than the Saints -3 that I got in on early since I figured it would go up. And also the Cowboys -3.5 I like a little bit.



[/ QUOTE ]

Me thinks that you underrate home field advantage in the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on my picks this is a valid point, however not for the Browns. I am aware of home field, however I guess where we differ is in a game like Saints vs Bucs, Bengals vs Browns, and maybe even Colts vs Titans the home teams are not good enough imo for it to be a facter in addition to the away teams being far better than the home teams in these games. We will see. Good luck all.

[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
Only one pick today, SF+3 - seems like I'm the only one picking the 9ers today, but ah well...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not.

- C -