Cleveland Browns (5-9) at Denver Broncos (11-3) Line: Broncos by 12. Total: 43.5. Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Broncos -9.5.
Walt's Projected Line (Before Week 15): Broncos -11.
Walt's Projected Line (After Week 15): Broncos -11.
Sunday, Dec. 23, 4:05 ET
Discuss Week 16 Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: Broncos.
Week 16 NFL Picks will be posted all day Wednesday, per the new schedule. I've received mix reaction to this, so voice your opinion via e-mail or in the comment box below. Follow me @walterfootball for updates.
Jerks of the Week for Dec. 17, 2012 is up, so just click the link. This week's jerks are Jerks of Black Friday.
DENVER OFFENSE: The Broncos are humming along, but the one concern with their offense right now is pass protection. Peyton Manning has taken five sacks in the past two games. That doesn't sound like a lot, but to illustrate how bad that is, Manning was sacked just three times between Weeks 4 and 10. Manning gets rid of the ball so quickly, so that five could be a double figure if Denver had an average signal-caller at the helm.
The good news for the Broncos is that guard Chris Kuper is expected to be back in the lineup. Kuper has sorely been missed; the pass protection breakdowns have coincided with his ankle injury. His return is important this week because the Browns are actually tied for seventh in sacks (36). They don't have a dominant pass-rusher, but they get their pressures from so many different places that it'll be crucial that the Broncos have all hands on deck to protect their MVP candidate.
If Manning has time in the pocket this week, he'll be able to torch the Browns. Cleveland looked pathetic trying to cover Kirk Cousin's receivers Sunday. The team used to be ranked in the top 10 in terms of stopping the pass, but losing stud safety T.J. Ward has been huge. Joe Haden is still there, and he'll likely take Demaryius Thomas away, but Manning will just target one of his many other options. Of course, he could just hand the ball off to a red-hot Knowshon Moreno, who will trample a stop unit that has allowed 119.3 rushing yards per contest over the past three weeks.
CLEVELAND OFFENSE: I think I'm being a bit obvious here when saying that this game features a mismatch at the quarterback position. Manning's playing out of his mind, while Brandon Weeden continues to be inconsistent. The geriatric rookie struggled immensely against the Redskins. His final numbers don't look too bad - 21-of-35, 244 yards, one touchdown, two interceptions - but he was just 19-of-31 for 166 yards and the pair of picks once Washington went up 31-14 in the second half and put that game out of reach.
It's pretty alarming that Weeden played this poorly against a Redskin defense that isn't that good. I know that Washington's stop unit has improved recently, but I still wouldn't call it a top-10 defense. The Broncos have one of those though, ranking near the top of nearly every major statistical category, including pass defense (6th; 6.58 YPA) and sacks (2nd; 42). Weeden doesn't stand a chance against that.
Trent Richardson won't have much success either. Denver is third versus ground attacks, limiting its previous three opponents to 64 rushing yards or fewer. Richardson has been great at powering into the end zone from near the goal line, but his yards-per-carry average has been abysmal of late, so don't expect him to make things easier for Weeden.
RECAP: I don't know what happened to the Browns last week. They had been playing so well, but they fell apart against the Redskins. Perhaps they just didn't respect Washington without Robert Griffin. If they play up to their capabilities, they should be able to cover this spread. It's just way too many points for a quality defensive Cleveland squad.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I'm putting a unit on the Browns. The top guys in the SuperContest are picking them. Plus, check out Manning's poor record as a huge home favorite.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No psychological edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: None.
There was lots of action on the host until it evened out.
Percentage of money on Denver: 56% (31,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Browns.
Browns are 17-7 ATS after allowing 30 or more points since 2005.
Peyton Manning is 2-6 ATS as a non-divisional home favorite of 12+.
New York Giants (8-6) at Baltimore Ravens (9-5) Line: Giants by 1. Total: 47. Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Ravens -1.5.
Walt's Projected Line (Before Week 15): Giants -1.
Walt's Projected Line (After Week 15): Ravens -1.
Sunday, Dec. 23, 4:15 ET
Discuss Week 16 Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: Giants.
It's time for some Migelini Madness! NFL.com sucks. They no longer have their regular GameCenter chat format; they installed a Facebook chat app instead, which really blows. This means that we won't be hearing from our favorite idiots anymore. No more pervy Aaron3619. No more stupid Migelini. No more childish Taton. No more insane Farim.
Well, I'm taking a stand against this via two methods. First, I have hundreds of unused GameCenter comments saved up, so I have enough to survive for a few more years. Second, I plan on re-creating our favorite GameCenter characters and having them troll the Facebook posters in the app. I made a Migelini account and my girlfriend, Awesome Girl Who Loves Football, who was once harassed by Aaron3619, is the new Aaron. Feel free to re-create other ones!
Perhaps I should ask Mario Migelini to make predictions on this site because his are much better than mine:
Eric Hoffman asks, "What's up with the word worster?" Good question. I feel like this needs to be added to dictionaries for illiterate people like Mario. It'll make them feel better about themselves!
Mario might be great at picks, but he sucks at geography:
Thanks for the geography lesson, Douglas Lopes! I really appreciate it!
Let it be known that Mario was the first person to predict that Ruskell Wilkens would win MVP:
I love the legitimate conversation my post sparked. It's great that so many people take me seriously.
BALTIMORE OFFENSE: I don't know why I didn't bet more against the Ravens last week because I called it: "The firing of Cam Cameron could actually be detrimental - at least this week. New offensive coordinator Jim Caldwell has never called plays before, so he's going to be learning something new on the fly. That's never good."
Indeed, the Ravens sputtered. By halftime, Joe Flacco was just 7-of-15 for 78 yards, a lost fumble and a pick, which was returned 98 yards by Chris Harris for a touchdown. Flacco, who telegraphed that throw, simply looked completely lost all afternoon. Ray Rice, meanwhile, had just 15 touches, none of which came on third down. That's just unbelievable. How do you not put the ball into the hands of a guy who converted a 4th-and-29? It's like Cameron never left.
Caldwell will learn from his mistake and give Rice more opportunities. That much we (probably) know. The Falcons, who struggle to run the ball, just gashed the Giants for 133 rushing yards, so Rice will have plenty of success on the ground. This will make things easier for a capsizing Flacco, who needs all the help he can get right now, given that he might be without his top receiver Torrey Smith, who suffered a concussion Sunday. As if running plays from a new offensive coordinator was hard enough.
NEW YORK OFFENSE: The Giants were miserable offensively as well last week. They scored no points, as they had immense difficulty converting third and fourth downs. Eli Manning, who is normally the master of moving the chains in those situations, was just 4-of-13, including 0-of-3 on fourth down. The problem was the absence of Ahmad Bradshaw. David Wilson is a talented rookie, but the coaching staff didn't trust him on third downs, opting instead to go with someone named Kregg Lumpkin in those spots.
Bradshaw has vowed that he'll play in this game, but it doesn't matter what he says because he needs to be cleared by team doctors first. He'll need to be on the field for third downs, but either running back should be able to gash a decrepit Baltimore ground defense that has allowed 305 rushing yards to its previous two opponents. Ray Lewis figures to be back in the lineup, but he was completely ineffective in run support prior to his injury. Plus, he's almost definitely not anywhere near 100-percent physically.
Lewis' presence will be felt in the passing game. Though his physical skills have eroded, he's still very valuable to the Ravens on the field because of his mind. He knows exactly what's going on and will be able to put his supporting cast in the right spots to succeed. The problem is that his supporting cast isn't as good as it used to be. Terrell Suggs isn't even close to 100 percent because he's injured. Several other players are out of the lineup. Baltimore's defense is a mess, so Eli Manning should be able to have a nice bounce-back performance.
RECAP: I had trouble making up my mind about this. The Giants are coming off a humiliating loss, which bodes well for them, but Baltimore is in a position of being a home underdog following a home dog loss - a very lucrative "bet-on" situation.
Ultimately, I looked closely at both teams, and I recalled that the Ravens aren't good at all. They've dropped three in a row. Before that, they should have lost to the Chargers and Steelers, but didn't because of the 4th-and-29 "conversion" and Byron Leftwich's rib injury, respectively. The Giants are the superior squad, and in a must-win game for both teams, they should prevail.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I'm staying with a lean on the Giants.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
A must-win game for both teams.
The Vegas. Edge: Ravens.
The Ravens are a public home underdog.
Percentage of money on New York: 80% (52,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: .
Giants are 35-14 ATS on the road since 2006 as long as they're not favored by 3.5 or more.
Eli Manning is 26-12 ATS as an underdog since 2007. ???
Chicago Bears (8-6) at Arizona Cardinals (5-9) Line: Bears by 6.5. Total: 36.5. Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Bears -6.5.
Walt's Projected Line (Before Week 15): Bears -7.
Walt's Projected Line (After Week 15): Bears -6.5.
Sunday, Dec. 23, 4:15 ET
Discuss Week 16 Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: Bears.
I can't wait until we have a whole army of former GameCenter personalities harassing people on Facebook. That's what NFL.com gets for getting rid of the GameCenter chat. My girlfriend is the new Aaron.
Check out how many random accounts confused normal people here. And no, I don't own any of these accounts, save for Mario Migelini.
I'm a fan of when people freak out and say racist things about my trolling buddies, so here's another post from Victor Valentino:
Thanks, Killa City Chiefs!
Here's a post where people spazzed about Carmine Cavinato's spelling:
I love the irony behind James Bjorklund's post. Did he really need to press the caps lock button?
This is a short one:
It's amazing how many people take us so seriously. If only they read this Web site...
Oh, and I have to show you this:
I'm very excited about this new troller! I can't wait for people to begin responding to Marty Millen.
ARIZONA OFFENSE: Remember when the Bears forced tons of takeaways per game and scored on enough of them to help beat the opposition? They haven't done much of that lately. They're still ranked first overall in turnovers forced, but they're just tied for 16th with a bunch of teams in that department over the past three weeks.
A major part of the reason for Chicago's defensive collapse has been injuries. Everyone will point to Brian Urlacher, but the two more significant players who are out of the lineup are cornerback Tim Jennings, the NFL's leader in interceptions, and defensive tackle Henry Melton, the team's top pass rusher (yes, even better than Julius Peppers). Melton's status is up in the air, but Jennings is tentatively expected to play. His return would be huge, as he could pad his pick stats against the worst quarterback group in the NFL (yes, even worse than the Jets').
Playing the Cardinals is exactly what the doctor ordered for the Bears. Arizona's pitiful offensive line has no prayer of blocking anyone, let alone Chicago's front. If the Cardinals move the ball, it'll be via fluky plays. I just don't see how they can possibly maintain consistent drives against the Bears.
CHICAGO OFFENSE: The Bears have their own offensive line issues. They've surrendered 41 sacks on the year, which includes four to Green Bay this past week. The Packers had Clay Matthews back in the lineup, which was terrible news for Jay Cutler. Fortunately for Cutler, he gets some good news here in that Arizona's pass rush has sputtered of late, accumulating only 10 sacks in the past six weeks.
Poor blocking is just one of the two issues Chicago's scoring attack is having right now. The other is that Cutler has only one viable downfield option. He has to keep locking into Brandon Marshall because the other receivers keep screwing up. For instance, Alshon Jeffery was whistled for three offensive pass interferences against the Packers, while Devin Hester was responsible for an interception because he ran a poor route.
Luckily, the Bears won't have to completely rely on Cutler's arm to win this game. They can just hand the ball off to Matt Forte, who will find plenty of huge running lanes against an Arizona defense that has surrendered a ridiculous 175 rushing yards per contest over the past four weeks.
RECAP: The Bears have struggled against superior opponents this year, but they've beaten all of the lesser foes they've battled. That trend should hold up, as Arizona's quarterbacks will prove to be no match for Chicago's defense.
Having said that, I'm not betting on this game, only because the Bears could be flat coming off an emotional loss to the Packers.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I would have put a unit or two on the Cardinals last week, but I'm trying to handicap like I did in 2010.
The Psychology. Edge: Cardinals.
The Bears just suffered an emotional loss to the Packers.
The Vegas. Edge: Cardinals.
No surprise bettors are all over the Bears.
Percentage of money on Chicago: 81% (34,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Cardinals.
Bears are 11-29 ATS in December road games the previous 40 instances.
Cardinals are 23-8 ATS in December home games since 2000.
Cardinals are 18-7 ATS at home as underdogs or favorites of less than -3 under Ken Whisenhunt.
San Francisco 49ers (10-3-1) at Seattle Seahawks (9-5) Line: Seahawks by 1. Total: 40. Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: 49ers -2.
Walt's Projected Line (Before Week 15): Seahawks -1.
Walt's Projected Line (After Week 15): Seahawks -1.
Sunday, Dec. 23, 8:20 ET
Discuss Week 16 Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: 49ers.
This week on Monday Sunday Night Football, we're going to have Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth calling the shots instead of the great preseason homers like Kevin Reilly and Don Tollefson, inept ESPN guys Emmitt and Matt Millen, annoying guys like Charles Davis and senile guys like Bob Greise. Here's what it would sound like if those five clowns were calling this game:
Al Michaels: Welcome to a rainy night in Seattle, where the Seahawks take on the 49ers! I'm Al Michaels, joined by Cris Collinsworth. Cris, the Seahawks have a great spread record at home. Would you say my five-unit bet is safe? I also teased Seattle and the under. What do you think?
Cris Collinsworth: Ohhhh I don't knowww, Alllll!!! This 49errr team is loooookin' reeealllyyy good lately.
Michaels: Damn it, Cris. Should I parlay the 49ers and the over? Or... wait, who are you?
Kevin Reilly: Who am I? Who are you? I was called in to do this game for NBC. Now get out of my chair, old man!
Michaels: Old man? I'm Al Michaels, the greatest announcer of all time. And I certainly don't need an entourage like you do. What do you have, like six broadcasting partners?
Reilly: Ugh, these idiots were assigned to me. I don't need them. I can do this all by myself. Now, who's playing? Like it matters since my Eagles aren't involved.
Griese: Eagles? I went to an Eagles' concert last night... weh?
Reilly: See what I mean, Al? It would be so much better if it were just me and Emmitt.
Emmitt: Ronald, I am please to heard that you valuable myselves as a broadcastin'. However, the other men on this crew also have valuable as well.
Michaels: This is your best broadcasting partner? Emmitt can't even put a simple sentence together!
Millen: Now, you listen here, Al. You're being very rude. And you don't even deserve to be rude. You are not 100-percent USDA Man, and only 100-percent USDA Men get to say that sort of thing. Heck, you're not even 5-percent USDA Man. I would never want to share any of my kielbasas with you - not even the old, rotting ones.
Tollefson: You tell him, Matt! I wouldn't want to share any of the 10 women I have tied up in my bedroom with him either!
Davis: I wouldn't either. Tolly, I've done inventory of your supplies. There's Sandy, she's tall and has brown hair. There's Cindy, she's a bit portly but she'll get the job done. Don't forget about Mindy. I'm not even sure if she's legal. How about Rosa? She's a blonde beauty. What about Rydia? Her hair is green, but she's sassy and lean. And then there's...
Michaels: What? Those are video game characters, you fool!
Reilly: You know, Al? I'm starting to like you. We'll be back after a word from our local sponsors!
SAN FRANCISCO OFFENSE: These NFC West coaches know what they're doing. While convention wisdom said that Alex Smith should retain his job, and countless, clueless analysts on ESPN like Woody Paige cited the terrible adage that you can't lose a job because of an injury - if this were true, Drew Bledsoe would have remained the quarterback of the Patriots instead of Tom Brady - Jim Harbaugh made the correct call. Going with Colin Kaepernick was the correct move. There's just no doubt about that.
While Smith was an economical passer under Harbaugh, he hardly possessed the throwing talent to make defenses respect the deep ball. In fact, Kaepernick reached Smith's completions mark of 20-plus yards in nearly a third of the attempts. Kaepernick had five completions of 24 yards or more in the impressive Sunday night victory at New England. The Seahawks rank fifth against the pass (6.3 YPA), but they happen to be missing one of their stud cornerbacks, so Kaepernick should be able to expose them on occasion.
Something else Kaepernick can do that Smith is just incapable of is beat the opposition with a long scramble. Kaepernick's read-option with Frank Gore is deadly, and it'll be particularly effective against the Seahawks, who have surrendered five yards per carry over the past month.
SEATTLE OFFENSE: Of course, the Seahawks have their own dangerous multi-threat quarterback. Russell Wilson has grown leaps and bounds since struggling at San Francisco back in Week 7, going 9-of-23 for 122 yards and an interception. He has just three turnovers since compared to 16 touchdowns.
The 49ers will attempt to rattle Wilson with pressure, particularly with Aldon Smith, who has 19.5 sacks on the year. However, Wilson is exceptional at navigating the pocket and buying time for himself so that he can find an open receiver or scramble for yardage. He was sacked only twice in that aforementioned Week 7 affair.
San Francisco surrendered 126 rushing yards in that victory, but that was back when they were struggling to stop the run; they were fresh off of giving up 151 yards on the ground to the Giants just a few days earlier. However, the last time the 49ers have permitted 100-plus rushing yards was back in Week 10, so they'll be better prepared to stop Marshawn Lynch this time.
RECAP: I love betting the Seahawks at home if they're either a small favorite or an underdog. They're just so dominant as hosts.
There's more to this bet than just blind Seattle home-game wagering. The 49ers just won an emotional statement game at New England. They have the division pretty much wrapped up. This is a much more important contest for the Seahawks; it's their turn to prove to everyone that they should be mentioned among the league's elite teams.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I still like the Seahawks enough to bet three units on them.
The Psychology. Edge: Seahawks.
The 49ers just won an emotional game. The Seahawks, meanwhile, will want to make a statement with a victory.
The Vegas. Edge: None.
Percentage of money on Seattle: 58% (32,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Seahawks.
History: Home Team has won 6 of the last 7 meetings.
Seahawks are 18-5 ATS as home favorites since 2007.
Week 16 NFL Picks - Early Games
Falcons at Lions,
Raiders at Panthers,
Saints at Cowboys,
Titans at Packers,
Vikings at Texans,
Bills at Dolphins,
Redskins at Eagles,
Bengals at Steelers,
Rams at Buccaneers,
Patriots at Jaguars,
Colts at Chiefs,
Chargers at Jets
Prop/Teaser/Parlay Picks A list of some of my favorite team/player prop picks this week (Offense & defensive ROY picks to be counted
whenver winners are announced.) Picks carried over on a week-to-week basis will be in black.
Note: For legality purposes, this Web site does not promote or advocate gambling. This is solely for entertainment purposes only.
Last Week's NFL Picks Against The Spread (Week 19, 2017): 2-2 (+$360)
Last Week's 2-3 Unit NFL Picks (Week 19, 2017): 1-1 (-$30)
Last Week's 4-5 Unit NFL Picks (Week 19, 2017): 1-0 (+$500)
Last Week Over-Under (Week 19, 2017): 3-1 (+$50)
Last Week's Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks (Week 19, 2017): $0
2017 NFL Picks of the Month: 4-1, 80.0% (+$1,920)
2017 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 137-137-8, 50.0% (-$2,180) 2017 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 32-39-3, 45.1% (-$2,065) 2017 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 20-21-1, 48.8% (-$1,145) 2017 Season Over-Under: 134-138-2, 49.3% (+$640) 2017 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$210
1999 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 27-41-3 (39.7%) 2000 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 128-123-8 (51.0%) 2001 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 127-122-7 (51.0%) 2002 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 123-136-7 (47.5%) 2003 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 146-126-8 (53.7%) 2004 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 157-123-8 (56.1%) 2005 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 156-126-11 (55.3%) 2006 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 151-135-9 (52.8%) 2007 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 162-135-10, 54.5% (+$2,550) 2008 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 148-140-7, 51.4% (+$2,620) 2009 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 151-124-9, 54.9% (+$3,370) 2010 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 144-131-8, 52.4% (+$6,080) 2011 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 137-133-12, 50.7% (-$1,925) 2012 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 130-145-8, 47.3% (-$5,760) 2013 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 144-131-8, 52.4% (+$5,580) 2014 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 143-133-7, 51.8% (-$1,885) 2015 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 134-138-12, 49.3% (-$2,360) 2016 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 148-127-10, 53.8% (+$1,055)
2002 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 41-49-2 (45.6%) 2003 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 52-51-2 (50.5%) 2004 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 65-44-3 (59.6%) 2005 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 77-61-1 (55.8%) 2006 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 65-61-4 (51.6%) 2007 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 83-59-5, 58.5% (+$4,110) 2008 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 44-57-3, 43.6% (-$3,510) 2009 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 49-35-3, 58.3% (+$2,260) 2010 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 51-38-4, 57.3% (+$3,180) 2011 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 44-51-3, 46.3% (-$2,715) 2012 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 45-50-2, 47.4% (-$2,130) 2013 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 38-42, 47.5% (-$2,890) 2015 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 47-44-1, 51.6% (-$820) 2016 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 42-35-3, 54.5% (+$475)
2002 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 11-12 (47.8%) 2003 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 16-13-1 (55.2%) 2004 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 18-11 (62.1%) 2005 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 25-22-1 (53.2%) 2006 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 21-29-1 (42.0%) 2007 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 35-30-2, 53.8% (+$420) 2008 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 39-26-2, 60.0% (+$4,055) 2009 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 29-26, 52.7% (+$330) 2010 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 32-22, 59.3% (+$4,790) 2011 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 14-14, 50.0% (-$1,260) 2012 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 14-21, 40.0% (-$3,650) 2013 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 17-9-3, 65.4% (+$2,970) 2015 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 17-16-2, 51.5% (-$1,120) 2016 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 21-22-5, 48.8% (-$1,465)
2001 Season Over-Under: 3-2 (60.0%) 2002 Season Over-Under: 121-91-3 (57.1%) 2003 Season Over-Under: 126-132-2 (48.8%) 2004 Season Over-Under: 139-124-4 (52.9%) 2005 Season Over-Under: 117-145-4 (44.7%) 2006 Season Over-Under: 129-132-5 (49.4%) 2007 Season Over-Under: 136-145-3, 48.4% (-$1,900) 2008 Season Over-Under: 137-125-6, 52.3% (+$860) 2009 Season Over-Under: 128-135-4, 48.7% (-$3,195) 2010 Season Over-Under: 128-135-5, 48.7% (-$5) 2011 Season Over-Under: 131-131-5, 50.0% (+$135) 2012 Season Over-Under: 125-121-5, 50.8% (+$30) 2013 Season Over-Under: 132-130-5, 50.4% (-$340) 2015 Season Over-Under: 143-119-5, 54.6% ($0) 2016 Season Over-Under: 123-141-1, 46.6% (+$95)
2007 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$1,035 2008 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$1,775 2009 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$865 2010 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$200 2011 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$590 2012 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$1,685 2013 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$2,245 2015 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$855 2016 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$275
2006 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-3 (50%) 2007 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-3, 50.0% (-$400) 2008 NFL Picks of the Month: 6-1, 85.7% (+$3,720) 2009 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-2, 60.0% (+$640) 2010 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-4, 33.3% (-$1,810) 2011 NFL Picks of the Month: 5-2, 71.4% (+$1,870) 2012 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-2, 60.0% (+$560) 2013 NFL Picks of the Month: 6-0, 100% (+$3,900) 2014 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-4, 33.3% (-$1,350) 2015 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-3, 50.0% (-$100) 2016 NFL Picks of the Month: 5-1, 83.3% (+$2,780)
Career NFL Picks Against The Spread: 2,574-2,380-151, 51.9% (+$6,735) Career 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 817-742-41 (52.4%) Career 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 349-313-19 (52.7%) Career Over-Under: 2,079-2,031-56 (50.5%) Career Second-Half NFL Picks: 22-15-1 (61.1%) Career NFL Picks of the Month: 39-23 (62.9%)
My Team-by-Team ATS Record This section shows how well I do when picking each team this year. The purpose is to see how well I read each team. Pushes are not
displayed. Winning/losing streak in parentheses.