ok, wtf? TWO Edge-rushers for the Redskins? Do you even know who is on the Redskins' roster? I was gonna comment after the first one, but decided not to. However, A SECOND EDGE-RUSHER? Preston Smith is quite good and only 23. The Redskins signed Kerrigan to a big contract extension. Clearly the top two spots are on lockdown. Question mark: Junior Galette. Can he return from a second torn achilles and provide a spark at DPR? We'll see, but he's more than just a journeyman edge rusher. Now, would it be nice to have some more depth? Sure, but that doesn't mean the Redskins should bypass their glaring needs at LG, C, and DL, GLARING needs, just to get DEPTH. Not a starter, but DEPTH. Safety, ILB, and RB. Just some more positions of need for you.
NFL Picks (2012): 130-145-8 (-$5,760) NFL Picks (2011): 137-133-12 (-$1,925) NFL Picks (2010): 144-131-8 (+$6,080) NFL Picks (2009): 151-124-9 (+$3,370) NFL Picks (2008): 136-125-6 (+$4,330)
If you don't quite understand the line, total or anything else, go to my
Sports Betting FAQ.
Vegas betting action updated Feb. 3, 3:00 p.m. Follow @walterfootball for updates.
Baltimore Ravens (13-6) vs. San Francisco 49ers (13-4-1) Line: 49ers by 4.5. Total: 48. Walt's Projected Line: 49ers -6.
Sunday, Feb. 3, 6:30 ET
at New Orleans
Discuss Playoff Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: Ravens.
Super Bowl XLVII NFL Pick 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.
WEEK 20 RECAP: It felt good to walk away without losing any money two weekends ago. It was strange. Almost as if the curse had been lifted off of me. Or maybe the karmic gods are just teasing me and setting me up for greater losses. Anything's possible at this point.
I was very conservative in terms of betting the conference championships because I was in a terrible funk. Some people didn't seem to understand my thought process:
WOW! For a guy who has his own website (for whatever reason) that involves handicapping games,the fact that you are only betting $50 on Championship Weekend is pretty pathetic.
Face it Walt, YOU STINK.
You do not deserve to have your own website anymore. That can't be more obvious to everyone.
Yeah, I stink. I admitted as much two weeks ago when I said, "I don't know what the hell I'm doing" and "I'm at a loss. My confidence is completely shaken. Like I said, if I pick one team, I know the other will cover. I just know it."
Here's some half-fan, half-hate mail:
Walt, I'm saying this because I care and I wish to continue seeing mock drafts and jerks of the week. Stop betting the NFL. YOU F***ING SUCK AT IT. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD A DOMAIN BECAUSE YOU BLEW YOUR MONEY ON PUTTING 3 UNITS ON A LOSING TEAM.
To the first hate-mailer: That's why I went only half a unit on the Ravens in Week 20.
Oh, and then I saw this:
Ah, sweet, sweet irony.
Jerks of the Week for Jan. 28, 2013 is up, so just click the link. This week's jerks entry is about One Final Night at Tango - the jerks I found on the night before my local bar closed for good.
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!
NFL.com has changed the format of these posts. They're now listed reverse chronologically, which is stupid because there are so many posts every minute. Still, I found a way around it by posting lots of messages, including:
Racist? How is that racist? I'm not even speaking in Italian. If anyone's racist, it's that Alex King guy who assumes the name "Mario Migelini" is Italian. Why can't Mario Migelini be black or Asian or Mexican?
I'm upset more people didn't see this post. I wanted them to berate James Greenback for criticizing a mentally challenged person.
Again, James Greenback, why are you so insensitive? Who cares if some kid can't spell his team's name correctly? That doesn't mean that he can't root for them. Jerk.
OK, maybe Mario can cheer for the Seahawks, but he doesn't know anything else about football if he thinks the Ravens are going for their seventh "supergame" championship.
I love how "Brain" bringing up a one-point overtime win led to this intricate discussion about scoring rules.
Steve Hunt: Cool story bro, but how are you ignoring his posts if you're responding to them?
I imagine your 7-year-old sister might be able to spot a troller as well - something you have failed to do.
I love it. Mark Holler's post where he says Cerlis is an idiot in part because he's picking the Ravens to beat the Patriots. Derrr. And yes, Patrick Kilgore, you're reading this everywhere because we have an entire army of trollers on NFL.com. That's what they get for ruining GameCenter.
This week on CBS, we're going to have Jim Nantz and Phil Simms calling the shots instead of the great preseason homers like Kevin Reilly and Don Tollefson, inept ESPN guys Emmitt and Matt Millen, annoying individuals like Charles Davis and senile men like Bob Greise. Here's what it would sound like if those six clowns were calling this game:
Nantz: Hello friends, and welcome to New Orleans, the site of Super Bowl XLVII! I'm Jim Nantz here with my partner Phil Simms, and... lots of other people. Who are you people?
Reilly: Who are we? Who are you? We're broadcasting this game like we've done every week over the past several years. Now, if you don't mind, get out of here before I order Matt Millen to insert a kielbasa into parts of your body where the sun don't shine.
Nantz: Friends, how dare you talk to me this way? Don't you know who I am? I am the great Jim Nantz. I star in commercials with Peyton Manning, and I have broadcasted many football and basketball games, as well as golf events for CBS Sports over several decades. Talk to me again this way, friends, and you'll never have a job in broadcasting ever again.
Reilly: Golf? Ha! Who broadcasts golf? Golf isn't even a sport.
Emmitt: Mike, I agree on you. I watch golf game on TV one time and golf very simple too. Only thing you need for golf game are three thing: stick, ball and hole. You bringin' all three thing to the golf courts. You put the hole down wherever you please then you walk a couple of feet and swing the stick on the ball. It so easy my son Emmitt Smith IV Junior can do it, and he only 10 years old or maybe 13 years old, I already forgetted.
Reilly: Exactly, Emmitt. Plus, I've seen fat guys playing golf like that Chuck Daly character. If he can play golf, anyone can play golf.
Nantz: Friends, I'm getting very angry. How dare you disparage the beautiful game of golf? Chime in, Phil. I know you're a golf fanatic, right?
Simms: Oh, someone's saying something bad about the game of golf, huh? I wonder why they don't like golf so much. Some say the game of golf is boring. Would you say golf is boring, huh? Well, I don't know, I can't say I've watched a full tournament on TV before, but hey, it works for some people and it doesn't work for other people. I wonder what true golf fans say to defend their sport. And is it even a sport? Oh, I don't know. I could see both arguments. But what about people who hate golf so much? Why don't they like it? Oh, I don't know, they might find it boring. There's very little action. Have you ever wondered what golf would be like with a little bit of action? I know I have. I've also wondered why they don't have windmills or clown faces or stuff of that nature on golf courses. Would that increase golf's popularity? Oh, I don't know, but I sure would like for them to experiment one time. Like if Augusta just put one windmill on the golf course, would that be too much to ask? I know I'd love to see it, but would the masses? Oh, I don't know, that's why I said they have to run an experiment. It certainly wouldn't hurt. What would be the downside? Oh, I don't know, but I'm sure we could find one. Then again, I wonder if...
Reilly: SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP! STOP ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTIONS! NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID QUESTIONS. GOD, YOU ARE ALMOST AS BAD AS CHARLES DAVIS!
Davis: That's right, Kevin. Did you know that if you go one under par that's a birdie? Or how about two under par? That would be called an eagle. Or what about the ultra-rare three under par? Well, that would be an albatross. Let's go to the flip side. One over par is a bogey. How about two over par? Be careful now! That's not a fancy bird name; it's just a double bogey. Now, let's see if you've been paying attention. What's three over par? That's right, a triple bogey.
Reilly: Charles Davis, one of these nights when I'm not busy, I'm going to sneak into your home and bash you over the head with a lamp.
Millen: That's funny you should say that, Kevin. I hide some of my kielbasas in lamps just in case an intruder tries this on me. Instead of getting hurt, tons of kielbasas will fall into my lap, and then I can grab the intruder, pull down his pants and shove that sweet kielbasa into his...
Reilly: That's enough, weirdo. Anyway, back to what I was saying before. Nantz, you're not welcome here. Go leave and do something stupid like buy posters of Cowboys' players and hang them on your wall. I have Eagles' players on my walls. Everyone knows that's the way to go because the Eagles are the greatest team in the world.
Tollefson: I have to disagree with you there, Kevin. The two teams playing in the annual halftime lingerie bowl are the best teams in all the land - especially if the girls come home and cook naked for their husbands after the game.
Millen: What!? HOW DARE YOU SAY THE LINGERIE TEAMS ARE BETTER THAN MY EAGLES? NO TEAM IS BETTER THAN MY EAGLES!
Griese: I'm picking the Eagles to win the Super Bowl. Weh? When's the Super Bowl again?
Nantz: Friends, I'll leave you to your bickering. If you're the future of sports broadcasting, then I don't want any part of it. Come, Phil, let's go watch the lingerie bowl.
Reilly: Ha! Idiots! Those women wouldn't stand a chance against my Eagles! We'll be back after a word from our local sponsors!
SAN FRANCISCO OFFENSE: Colin Kaepernick has the third-fewest starts of any quarterback to ever make a Super Bowl start, but that won't phase him. Kaepernick went into Atlanta and led a comeback after being down by 17 points early. He was nearly flawless, going 16-of-21 for 233 yards and a touchdown. More importantly, he didn't commit a single turnover. Kaepernick has been responsible for just three giveaways in his previous six games despite playing top competition like Atlanta, Green Bay, New England and Seattle in that span. It's difficult to believe that he's just a first-year starter.
The Ravens have a better defense than all of those teams, but they've had extreme difficulty dealing with mobile quarterbacks. Check out how QB Dog Killer and Robert Griffin fared when playing Baltimore this season:
If QBDK has a good game against your defense, you know you're doing something wrong. Or maybe were doing something wrong. There's no doubt that Baltimore's stop unit has improved recently. People want to point to Ray Lewis and whatever sort of unicorn blood he's injected into his triceps, but the difference has been Paul Kruger, who has been a dominant force for the Ravens ever since becoming a full-time starter in Week 14. I like his chances against right tackle Anthony Davis, who hasn't really been challenged this postseason.
Kruger and company putting pressure on Kaepernick is key because the Ravens should be able to stop the run and force Kaepernick to beat them downfield. Baltimore was brutal versus the rush early in the season, but has really improved against it lately. Again, people will point to Lewis' injected angel tears, but Terrell Suggs' return to the lineup has been huge in that regard. More importantly, Haloti Ngata looks healthy again. Ngata wasn't very effective when he was bothered by shoulder and knee injuries in the middle of the season, but he's once again an overpowering force in the trenches.
So, Kaepernick will have to beat Baltimore downfield to move the chains consistently in this contest. No big deal, right? Well, the Ravens have sported the No. 1 pass defense in the NFL during the past month and a half. They perplexed Tom Brady and Peyton Manning enough to give themselves a good chance to win. If they can limit two future first-ballot Hall-of-Famers, they can certainly befuddle Kaepernick just a bit.
BALTIMORE OFFENSE: Joe Flacco wants to get paid. An impending free agent, Flacco has made it known that he wants Drew Brees money. This request would have been laughable a month and a half ago when he was struggling, but Flacco has put together three consecutive brilliant performances this postseason. Unless he completely embarrasses himself in the Super Bowl, his financial dreams will come true.
Flacco's been great, especially when lobbing it deep, but a major factor in his improvement has been the offensive line. Having Bryant McKinnie take over at left tackle has been absolutely huge because it has allowed Michael Oher and Kelechi Osemele to move to right tackle and guard, respectively, which are their natural positions (despite Oher's famous moniker). The result is that Flacco has taken just four sacks this entire postseason.
With that in mind, it would appear as though the Ravens have the advantage in the trenches. The 49ers registered two sacks in a pair of January games. That's a bit misleading because they put tons of pressure on Aaron Rodgers in the divisional round of the playoffs, but they couldn't get to Matt Ryan whatsoever in the NFC Championship. Justin Smith's pass-rushing presence has been non-existent. He's been solid in run support since his return from injury, but he has generated no pressure on the quarterback. Perhaps having two weeks off will help, but he has a tough task ahead of him in this contest.
Assuming Flacco's protection holds up, he should be able to beat the 49ers deep on occasion. The one vulnerable part of San Francisco's defense is its secondary, as we all saw in the NFC Championship when Matt Ryan threw for 396 yards. Carlos Rogers is not the corner he used to be, while Donte Whitner, who was somehow voted to the Pro Bowl, surrendered more touchdowns than any safety in the NFL this season. The defensive back who struggled the most at Atlanta, however, was the apparently elite Dashon Goldson. If Ryan can beat the 49ers deep, I don't see why Flacco can't.
The vertical passing attack should open up some ground lanes for Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce. The 49ers just surrendered 78 rushing yards on 21 carries to the Falcons, a team with barely any talent at the running back position. Baltimore has been sticking to its rushing attack with Jim Caldwell at the helm, so the offensive line could wear down San Francisco's front by the fourth quarter.
RECAP: I don't agree with this spread. The Ravens continue to be big underdogs - this would be 49ers -6.5 in San Francisco - yet they keep covering because they are undervalued. I think this is an evenly matched game, so my first instinct is to make a big play on the underdog. Two awesome trends support that:
1. The team that is the better seed (if applicable) is 1-12-2 against the spread in the Super Bowl since 1996.
2. Teams that played in the wild-card round are 7-0 against the spread in the Super Bowl in the past 10 years.
However, three things give me pause:
1. I joked about Lewis' banned substance earlier, but it could serve as a distraction. I think the contrarian angle is to cast this off as a media-derived story, but I think that's naive. There's no doubt that the Baltimore players are being asked about this. "Do you think Lewis used a banned substance?" "Do you know anything about Lewis using a banned substance?" "Have you heard of this banned substance before?" "Was Bambi's mom killed in the process of making this banned substance?" The Super Bowl is a media circus, and it seems crazy to think that the Ravens aren't being bombarded with these ridiculous questions.
2. Circadian Rhythms. It's real. Don't you roll your eyes at me. I'll let my LV Hilton Super Contest friend Matvei explain: "These last two games are a great argument for no early starts for West teams. Seattle starts at 10, is asleep for 2.5 quarters, loses. Niners start at noon, sleep for the first quarter and a half, win only because the Falcons have the worst blown NFC Championship lead of all time. These leads seem to be an obvious product of the damn time zones."
This game starts at 6:30. It normally would end sometime around 9:40, but don't forget that Super Bowl halftimes are extra long. According to my live Super Bowl blogs, the previous two Super Bowls have concluded at 9:55 and 10:05.
Why is this important? Because the human body tends to fall asleep sometime between 8 and 9 p.m. That's why the 49ers are always dominant in night games (check out the trend below). I could see this contest being very close entering the fourth quarter, but as with the Packers-49ers divisional-round affair, San Francisco could run away with it at the very end.
3. This spread opened at -5 in most places. It's now at -3.5, which rests below a key number of four. If you bet the Ravens, you're not getting good value. Conversely, you're stuck with the half-point hook if you like the 49ers. The oddsmakers are a**holes for doing this, but that's why they've been in business for so long.
FINAL PICK: Despite those three factors, I'm still taking the Ravens - but not for nearly as much as I'd want to. If anything, I think Baltimore bettors should consider a first-half wager more than anything.
TOTAL: Going under here. The under is 6-2 in the previous eight Super Bowls. The Ravens have an awesome red-zone defense, so field goals should keep the score down.
PROPS: I'm not a big fan of prop betting, but occasionally I'll come across a few things I'll like. For example, I found the best prop of all time three years ago:
Will Matt Millen pick the correct team to win Super Bowl XLIII during the Pre Game Show? Yes -225; No +185.
This was brilliant - if I do say so myself - because if you bet no and he picked the Cardinals, you were basically getting the Steelers moneyline at +185. And if he picked the Steelers, you were essentially getting a solid wager with Arizona money line. I ended up making $90 on the prop. There's nothing like capitalizing on Millen's incompetence (as long as there are no 100-percent USDA Men or kielbasas involved, of course).
Unfortunately, I don't see any locks like this one. However, I found five props I really like:
1. Will the team that scores first win the game - No +140 (5Dimes.com): In the previous 11 Super Bowls, six teams that scored first ended up losing the game. Every single team that scored first in the divisional round of the playoffs and the conference championships lost. Isn't that pretty nuts? Scoring first doesn't mean anything. Because of this, +140 is a pretty decent bargain.
2. Will both teams make a field goal of 33 yards or more in the game - No -160 (Bovada.lv): Believe it or not, both participants have made a field goal of 33-plus in only 10 of the 46 Super Bowls.
3. Will Ray Lewis murder the person who broke the story about him killing Bambi's mom so he could play football - Yes -440 (BetWalt.com): Why, in your right mind, would you go up against Lewis like that? You know he killed someone, right?
3. Baltimore wins by 1-6 points +420; San Francisco wins by 1-6 points +310 (5Dimes): I like this scheme because there's a good chance we'll get one of these two right. Most of the recent Super Bowls have been close.
4. Will there be a scoreless quarter - No -300 (Bovada.lv): In the previous eight Super Bowls, there has only been one scoreless quarter.
5. Will Jack Harbaugh disown the son who loses the Super Bowl - Yes -190 (BetWalt.com): Tom Crean will replace Jack or John as the second son.
5. Ravens +9.5 and under 53.5 +100 (5Dimes.com): This is essentially a Baltimore-under teaser with no juice.
6. Colin Kaepernick rushing yards - Under 43.5 +130 (5Dimes.com): Kaepernick has nine starts, including the playoffs. He's eclipsed 50 rushing yards in just three of those games. The Ravens are going to do everything in their power to make sure he doesn't beat them on the ground.
7. Brett Favre - ??? It was announced today that Favre will be part of NFL Network's coverage. I'll search for a Millen-esque Favre prop later in the week. Hopefully we can make money again off of that.
I'll have my annual live Super Bowl blog. Follow me at @walterfootball for updates.
FINAL THOUGHTS: A few things:
1. This spread is up to 4.5, so I feel better about the Ravens. I'm also not as concerned about Circadian rhythms as I was earlier because both teams have been in the Central time zone for about a week now.
The Ravens just seem like the team of destiny - with Ray Lewis' impending retirement, Torrey Smith's brother's death and the O.J. Brigance situation, they just seem like they're supposed to win. They're clicking at the right time, and they're mostly healthy.
2. Unfortunately, there is no Brett Favre prop. I was hoping there would be. Oh well.
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.
Will the Team that Scores First Win the Game - No +140 (2 Units) -- Incorrect; -$200
Will both teams make a field goal of 33 yards or more in the game - No -160 (2 Units) -- Incorrect; -$320
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 3, 2016): 7-7-2 (+$880)
Last Week's 2-3 Unit NFL Picks (Week 3, 2016): 1-2-1 (-$320)
Last Week's 4-5 Unit NFL Picks (Week 3, 2016): 3-0-1 (+$1,300)
Last Week Over-Under (Week 3, 2016): 7-9 ($0)
Last Week's Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks (Week 3, 2016): +$320
2016 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-0, 100% (+$1,200)
2016 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 41-24-1, 65.1% (+$3,475) 2016 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 13-7-1, 65.0% (+$1,065) 2016 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 6-2-1, 75.0% (+$1,360) 2016 Season Over-Under: 25-23, 52.1% ($0) 2016 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$80
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Career NFL Picks Against The Spread: 2,332-2,140-132, 52.2% (+$11,625) Career 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 754-675-35 (52.8%) Career 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 312-270-14 (53.6%) Career Over-Under: 1,848-1,788-51 (50.8%) Career Second-Half NFL Picks: 22-15-1 (61.1%) Career NFL Picks of the Month: 34-22 (60.7%)
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.