NFL Picks (Preseason 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 1, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 2, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 3, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 4, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 5, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 6, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 7, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 8, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 9, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 10, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 11, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 12, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 13, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 14, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 15, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 16, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 17, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 18, 2013):
NFL Picks (Week 19, 2013):
NFL Picks (2013):
142-130-8 (+$4,590) 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):
If you don't quite understand the line, total or anything else, go to my
Sports Betting FAQ
Vegas betting action updated Jan. 20, 1:40 p.m. ET. Follow @walterfootball
New England Patriots (13-4) at Denver Broncos (14-3)
Line: Broncos by 5. Total: 57.5.
Walt's Calculated Line:
Sunday, Jan. 19, 3:00 ET
Discuss Playoff Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: None.
WEEK 19 RECAP:
I had a slightly winning week, going 2-2 for +$60, thanks to San Diego's backdoor cover. I'd consider myself lucky if the Carolina-San Francisco game wasn't fixed. Maybe the 49ers would've won anyway, but the Panthers had no chance against the deadly combo of Jim Harbaugh and the officials.
One of the games I won was with Patriots -7. The Patriots destroyed the Colts, but did they shoot their wad by doing so? The stats would say they did. This may vary a bit depending on which spreads you use, but teams that score 40-plus in the playoffs are 3-22-2 against the spread since 1996, and 2-13-2 ATS since 2001.
Here were the three teams that bucked (or tied) that trend since 2001:
2003: Colts (+3.5) won and covered at Kansas City in Week 19, 38-31.
2010: Packers (-3.5) won and covered at Chicago in Week 20, 21-14.
2012: 49ers (-4) won and pushed at Atlanta in Week 20, 28-24.
The Packers were able to win because Jay Cutler left the game with an injury, while the 49ers had to come back from a huge deficit. However, something that these three teams have in common is that they've had either elite coaching or quarterbacking. So, that begs the question: How do teams fare after scoring 40-plus in the playoffs if they have elite coaching or quarterbacking?
Here's the rundown since 2001:
2001: Rams (-10.5) won and didn't cover vs. Philadelphia in Week 20, 29-24 (Kurt Warner).
2003: Colts (+3.5) won and covered at Kansas City in Week 19, 38-31 (Peyton Manning).
2004: Colts (+2) lost and didn't cover at New England in Week 19, 20-3 (Peyton Manning).
2004: Patriots (-7) won and didn't cover vs. Philadelphia in Super Bowl, 24-21 (Tom Brady).
2009: Saints (-3) won and pushed vs. Minnesota in Week 20, 31-28 (Drew Brees).
2010: Packers (-3.5) won and covered at Chicago in Week 20, 21-14 (Aaron Rodgers).
2011: Patriots (-7) won and didn't cover vs. Baltimore in Week 20, 23-20 (Tom Brady).
2012: 49ers (-4) won and pushed at Atlanta in Week 20, 28-24 (Jim Harbaugh).
2012: Patriots (-8) lost and didn't cover vs. Baltimore in Week 20, 28-13 (Tom Brady).
So, the good news for New England is that teams with elite quarterbacks or coaches are 2-5-2 after 40-plus points in the playoffs. That's not very good, but it's much better than 2-13-2. The bad news, however, is that Brady is 0-3 against the spread in such situations - though it's worth noting that his team was a favorite of seven or more in each instance. Perhaps the Patriots will have better luck as an underdog.
My Las Vegas Hilton Supercontest partner Matvei and I also talked about some situations that almost always win:
Seahawks at home
Saints at home
Packers at home (needs Aaron Rodgers)
Jim Harbaugh anywhere (unless he's playing another top team, i.e. Panthers or Seahawks)
Tom Brady off a loss as long as he's not favored by a lot
Those situations have gone 15-5 against the spread since Week 8, with the Seahawks failing to beat the spread this past week because of a backdoor cover. They'll have a chance to redeem themselves this Sunday.
The Sports Club and Sportsbook.ag posted their Super Bowl spreads for the four possible matchups. This is something to keep in mind in two weeks once the media and public have overreacted to what they see this weekend. I've taken the average of the two spreads:
Seahawks vs. Broncos: Pick
49ers vs. Broncos: 49ers -1
Seahawks vs. Patriots: Seahawks -4
49ers vs. Patriots: 49ers -4
Week 20 NFL Picks will be posted all day Wednesday. Follow me @walterfootball
The sportsbooks took quite a beating this past weekend - the third consecutive NFL week in which they've gotten pretty wrecked. It's good that they earned so much money earlier in the season; otherwise, there'd be several oddsmakers found in the trunks of abandoned cars in the Nevada desert.
NEW ENGLAND OFFENSE:
The Broncos suffered a huge loss Sunday when cornerback Chris Harris tore his ACL. Harris was one of the league's best corners this season. He was playing extremely well against the Chargers, but his replacement, the 34-year-old Quentin Jammer, was pretty miserable. In fact, Jammer's presence on the field was what sparked San Diego's offense in that near-fourth-quarter comeback.
Harris is not going to make some miraculous recovery, so Denver will have to deal with Jammer's anemic coverage. This is obviously huge considering the Broncos will be battling Tom Brady, so they'll have to generate as much pressure as possible. This area was a concern for Denver considering Von Miller was lost for the season, but the team was able to sack Philip Rivers twice on San Diego's opening possession Sunday, which rattled the fiery quarterback early on. Shaun Phillips stepped up, registering two sacks, but former Jaguar defensive end Jeremy Mincey was the difference-maker. He wasn't on the field for even half of the snaps, but when he was, he did a great job of making Rivers' life miserable.
Brady had some pass-protection issues early in the season, but those haven't been as prevalent lately - he's taken two or fewer sacks in four of his previous five games - because New England has emphasized running the ball. LeGarrette Blount has been phenomenal, gaining more than five yards per carry on the ground. The Broncos just shut down San Diego's rushing attack, but Ryan Mathews was banged up and ineffective. Considering the injuries the Broncos have on their stop unit, containing Blount and Stevan Ridley will be more difficult.
Regardless of how well Blount and Ridley run, Brady figures to have opportunities to torch Denver downfield. Brady was terrific in his Week 12 comeback victory over the Broncos, going 34-of-50 for 344 yards and three touchdowns in extremely windy conditions. He had Rob Gronkowski for that game, and his absence will still be felt, but remember that he was going up against Von Miller and Harris, both of whom won't be on the field this time.
It was odd to see Peyton Manning come through in the clutch in the playoffs. Faced with a third-and-17, Manning somehow found Julius Thomas for a gain of 21 yards along the sidelines. It was a great pass, but it's curious how Thomas was able to get so open. The Chargers clearly had a breakdown in coverage; perhaps this was a byproduct of numerous defenders leaving the game with concussions. Plus, it's not like San Diego had a great defense anyway. The stop unit had improved in recent weeks, but there were still holes to be exploited.
The Patriots won't have such issues. They have a pretty stout secondary that has played much better since rookie corner Logan Ryan has seen more time on the field. Safety Steve Gregory is actually the only liability in the defensive backfield right now, so you have to believe Manning will target to exploit him. Gregory didn't even play in the previous matchup between these teams because of a thumb injury, but he was pretty miserable this past week against the Colts.
New England was able to make up for Gregory's ineptitude by putting tons of pressure on Andrew Luck. Second-round rookie linebacker Jamie Collins was completely dominant. He won't be as effective against Manning, who releases the ball very quickly, but he'll still be able to pressure the future Hall of Famer.
Manning can alleviate some of this pressure by helping his team establish the run early. The Patriots are susceptible to the rush; they were ranked 21st against it in the regular season in terms of YPC, thanks to several players being out of the lineup, most notably Vince Wilfork. Brandon Spikes won't be on the field either, which will hurt. The Colts weren't able to expose this liability because they were down early, but you better believe that Knowshon Moreno and Montee Ball will be ripping off big chunks of yardage.
To be honest, I've never been more torn on a game. I can list several strong reasons to take both sides.
Here's why I would pick the Broncos:
1. As I detailed above, teams that score 40-plus in the playoffs have a horrific track record of covering. All of the numbers are listed in the Week 19 recap. It's pretty dubious for New England.
2. On a related note, teams coming off wins of 21-plus at home in the playoffs are 4-10 against the spread the following week since 2002. That doesn't carry nearly the sample size the other trend does, but it does make sense that a team that just enjoyed a blowout victory would be inflated by the public.
3. The sharps are all over the Broncos. This spread opened at -6 to -7 (depending on which book you looked at), and yet it fell all the way to -4.5 despite the public pounding New England. It has since risen to -5.5, as the sharps absolutely loved the -4.5.
Here's why I would pick the Patriots:
1. Tom Brady is an underdog. He even discussed being an underdog in some media interviews recently. He's definitely going to be in F-U mode in this contest. As I noted when I chose New England as my NFL Pick of the Month in December, the Patriots are 5-2 against the spread in projected "F-U mode" games this year, if that makes any sense.
2. A trend I posted last week applies: Playoff teams with 12-plus victories are 39-11 against the spread if they have a worse record than their opponent.
3. This spread doesn't make sense from a marginal-dynamics perspective. The Patriots have lost by more than four points just once all year, which was a 13-6 defeat at Cincinnati in a monsoon. Why would they suddenly lose by more than 5.5 points? That just doesn't make sense to me.
4. This spread is off to me. Denver should be a three-point favorite by my numbers. Then again, this is exactly what the public is thinking right now.
I'm taking the Patriots. Four reasons is better than three reasons, right? That's definitely the case, but in all honesty, I'd probably choose the underdog in this matchup no matter what. The underdog in games between Brady and Manning is 10-5 against the spread, but only 5-10 straight up. So, based on history, the Broncos will win, but only by the slimmest of margins - which matches up to my projected spread.
Again, Week 20 NFL Picks will be posted all day. I'll announce via Twitter @walterfootball
when each selection is posted.
I had three hang-ups with picking the Patriots, one of which was the 40-plus rule I referenced earlier. Jeffrey Faenza, who did the research for how much Tedd Ginn hates me
, was allowed to write anything he wanted to on this site. He used it to delve into the 40-point rule:
I wanted to mention that I did a bit of research on that 3-22 against the spread when scoring 40+ points in the playoffs the week before since 1996. I wanted to know which % of those were favorites following their 40+ outing and which were underdogs or even. I found that if the team scored 40+ the week before and were then underdogs/even the next week, like the Patriots are this week, then the teams are 2-7 ATS since 1996. So 2 of the 3 covers that have occurred in this trend have been when the team the following week was an underdog.
It makes sense that the cover rate when a favorite would then have to be 1-15. The team would be valued higher because their last weeks performance would be fresh in the mind and would inflate the spread.
If you want to do more research on it, the 2-7 statistic is composed of:
Colts @ Patriots 2013-2014 - Colts +7 - Loss ATS/SU - 0-1
Seahawks @ Bears 2010-2011 - Hawks +10 - Loss ATS/SU - 0-2
Cardinals @ Saints 2009-2010 - Cardinals + 7 - Loss ATS/SU - 0-3
Colts @ Patriots 2004-2005 - Colts + 1 - Loss ATS/SU - 0-4
Falcons @ Eagles 2004-2005 - Falcons +5 - Loss ATS/SU - 0-5
Colts @ Chiefs 2003-2004 - Colts +3 - Win ATS and SU - 1-5
Jets @ Raiders 2002-2003 - Jets +5.5 - Loss ATS/SU - 1-6
Giants v. Ravens (Super Bowl) 2000-2001 - Giants +3 - Loss ATS/SU - 1-7
Broncos @ Chiefs 1998-1999 - Even - Win ATS and SU - 2-7
Also, the two wins in this dynamic belong to Peyton Manning and John Elway, two of the greatest quarterbacks ever. In the Patriots' case, they have Tom Brady, so I would put him in a similar class. Also, all of the games (excluding the Super Bowl in 2000) were played away for the underdog, which is the same dynamic as this week.
I don't know what this really means or if it makes a difference at all, I just wanted you to know the difference! (22% cover rate (Underdog), opposed to a 6.25% cover rate (Favorite), opposed to a 12% cover rate (combined)).
Wow, that's awesome. The sharps are still on the Broncos, but I'm fine with going with one unit on New England. If it wasn't for all the public money on the Patriots, I'd probably take the underdog for 2-3 units.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: Broncos.
Wow, look at all of that money on the Patriots.
Percentage of money on New England: 67% (98,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Patriots.
Tom Brady is 160-53 as a starter (122-86 ATS).
Tom Brady is 18-7 in the playoffs (11-14 ATS).
Tom Brady is 19-9 ATS as an underdog since 2003.
John Fox is 8-3 ATS in the playoffs.
Peyton Manning is 5-11 ATS in the playoffs (excluding games against terrible QBs: Jake Plummer, Trent Green, Rex Grossman).
Opening Line: Broncos -6.
Opening Total: 54.5.
Weather: Sunny, 62 degrees. Light wind.
Week 20 NFL Pick: Broncos 27, Patriots 24
Patriots +5 (1 Unit) -- Incorrect; -$110
Under 57.5 (0 Units) -- Correct; $0
Broncos 26, Patriots 16
San Francisco 49ers (14-4) at Seattle Seahawks (14-3)
Line: Seahawks by 3.5. Total: 40.
Walt's Calculated Line: Seahawks -6.5.
Sunday, Jan. 19, 6:30 ET
Discuss Playoff Games, Talk Trash
The Game. Edge: Seahawks.
The Mock Draft Builder is up! Create your own 2014 NFL Mock Draft and have it featured in our mock database. Follow me @walterfootball for updates.
If you didn't catch it, a reminder that Jerks of the Week for Jan. 13, 2013 is up, so just click the link. This week's jerks entry is entitled Snowed In and Going Insane.
HATE MAIL: Another week, another stack of hate mails. These are from the comment boards on this page or on the NFL Power Rankings:
walterrible again with his long write-ups about the sharps and the line being wrong lmao the line was wrong san fran should have been favored by 10! walt will go o and 2 today as the broncos roll by 20 plus. they have been chomping at the bit waiting to play a playoff game again after last year. this game will not be close. Denver 38 San Diego 17
I love these derp comments that look stupid after the actual result. I got lucky with the Chargers' backdoor cover, but the Broncos barely scored 24 points, so I don't know how they were going to "roll by 20 plus."
love how the panthers are his play of the week when the packers were his play of the week also rofl its no surprise you lose so much money, walter
I'm up almost five grand this year, and yet I'm losing so much money? How is this possible!?!?!?!?
Do you actually think those little joke things are funny, or is one of those 'these are so bad that they're good' scenarios? Please stop. The thing with the cop below the 49ers blurb was awful. Like just terrible, to the point where i felt sorry for you. Please stop with these god-awful, painful jokes and just stick to football.
It's OK, bro. Not everyone can have a good sense of humor. You can go back to laughing at rice pudding and bushes while wondering why no one else in the world finds this funny.
SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BE FUNNY
"Trying?" I am a comedic genius, and comedic geniuses don't need to "try" to be funny. It just happens naturally!
good god you are an unfunny hack
I'll admit that I am a hack, but "unfunny" hack? Come on, man. Just because you don't have a sense of humor doesn't mean you should hurl insults so bravely behind your computer!
Anyway, this week on FOX, we're going to have Joe Buck and Troy Aikman calling the shots instead of the great preseason homers like Kevin Reilly and Don Tollefson, inept ESPN guys Emmitt, Herman Edwards and Matt Millen, annoying men like Charles Davis and senile individuals like Bob Greise. Here's what it would sound like if those seven clowns (and some special guests) were calling this game:
Reilly: Welcome to Seattle, home of coffee, nonstop rain, my favorite show The Killing and the Seattle Seahawks! Tonight, the Seahawks battle the San Francisco Giants for the right to go to the Super Bowl, even though my Eagles should be here. Guys, I have to talk about something unrelated to this game that's really been bothering me. Peyton Manning said after beating the Chargers that he needed a Bud Light. He got paid for this. I want to know why I haven't been paid for talking about any products.
Emmitt: Richard, Peyton get pay for sayin' the term Bud Light because he very famous. He Super Bowl winnin' quarterback, which mean he win Super Bowl. What has you ever done that even comparison to these?
Reilly: How dare you, Emmitt? I thought we were best friends! I played in the NFL for my Eagles and now I'm a great broadcaster. I deserve money for talking about products!
Tollefson: What a great idea, Kevin. You can make money from these companies and then you can donate some to the Human Fund, which I'm running. I swear it's a real organization, and all of your money will go to the people. Just make your money order out to me. Donate within the next 30 minutes, and I'll throw in my book, How to Get a Dumb Woman to Cook and Clean Naked for You, but supplies are limited!
Reilly: I don't care about women, but I'll definitely donate. Might as well start making money now. Guys, the only thing weighing on my mind right now is eating a bag of Skittles while watching Nick Foles highlight videos and touching my no-no-special place.
Millen: Kevin, this is something I like to do often myself. But instead of Skittles, I have some kielbasas on hand that I like to shove up my own backside. You see, it's always best when a man of 100-percent USDA is there to help you insert kielbasas into your backside, but sometimes you're alone and you have to pleasure yourself, especially when highlight videos of Nick Foles happen to be on TV.
Reilly: Ugh, now I don't think I can watch Nick Foles videos ever again. Thanks a lot, Millen. I'm also going to need Tylenol PM to go to sleep. Guys, the only thing weighing on my mind right now is dumping dozens of Tylenol PM pills into my mouth and passing out.
Edwards: THAT'S NOT GOOD! THAT'S BAD! DON'T TAKE A LOT OF PILLS! DON'T DO IT! CAN'T DO IT! SHOULDN'T DO IT! HERM WON'T LET YOU DO IT! HERM WILL STOP YOU! HERM WILL CONTAIN YOU! TAKING LOTS OF PILLS WILL MAKE YOU SICK! YOU MIGHT ALREADY BE SICK BUT IT'LL MAKE YOU MORE SICK! SICKER THAN SICK! SICKER THAN YOU ARE RIGHT NOW! EVEN IF YOU'RE ALREADY VERY SICK! SICKER THAN THAT! PILLS HAVE NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS! NEGATIVE; NOT POSITIVE! THE OPPOSITE OF POSITIVE! NOT POSITIVE AT ALL! NEGATIVE WITH A CAPITAL P! I MEAN NEGATIVE WITH A CAPITAL N! CAPITAL E TOO! AND CAPITAL G! AND CAPITAL A! AND CAPITAL I! AND CAPITAL V! AND CAPITAL E! WAIT, HERM FORGOT A LETTER! A LETTER IS MISSING! HERM DOESN'T KNOW WHAT LETTER HE MISSED! HERM CAN'T FIND THE LETTER HE MISSED! WHERE'S THE LETTER!? WHERE'D THE LETTER GO!? DID ANYONE SEE THE LETTER!? WHAT WAS THE LETTER!? WHY'D THE LETTER DISAPPEAR!? MAYBE SOMEONE STOLE THE LETTER! DID THE LETTER HAVE A STAMP ON IT!? WAS THE LETTER POSTMARKED!? DID THE LETTER HAVE AN ADDRESS ON IT!? HERM DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT LETTER HE'S TALKING ABOUT! HERM'S CONFUSED! THE LETTER... uhh... umm...
Reilly: You idiot, you don't even know how to spell the word "negative." Guys, speaking of negative, the only thing weighing on my mind right now is getting a First Response pregnancy test and having it say "negative."
Griese: Weh? Am I pregnant again?
Reilly: Shut up, idiot. Men can't get pregnant. But if you do decide to take a pregnancy test make it First Response. That's the only thing weighing on my mind right now.
Davis: Kevin, did you know there are several types of pregnancy tests? You mentioned the First Response product, Kevin. That's always efficient, Kevin. How about Clearblue, Kevin? That's always a good one, Kevin. Did you know there are different types of Clearblue products, Kevin? Kevin, there's Clearblue Easy. There's also Clearblue Plus, Kevin. Do you know the difference between those, Kevin? One is easy, while the other is a plus, Kevin. And let's not forget, Kevin, that there's also Clearblue Weeks Estimate. You can get the week estimate of how long you've been pregnant, Kevin. Let's move on, Kevin. How about E.P.T., Kevin? That's a great one to use, Kevin. What about BFP, Kevin? Have you tried that one, Kevin? How about...
Reilly: I'M NOT GETTING PREGNANT, IDIOT, SO I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS!
First Response Worker: Kevin, we've decided we're not going to pay you because of your most recent remark.
Reilly: NOOOOOO!!! Charles Davis, you a**hole, you cost me money! I'm going to strangle you in your f***ing sleep! We'll be back after a word from our local sponsors!
SAN FRANCISCO OFFENSE: If Colin Kaepernick plays like he did the last time he visited Seattle, the 49ers won't stand a chance. He was just 13-of-28 for 127 yards, no touchdowns and four turnovers (three interceptions, one lost fumble) back in Week 2. Of course, things were much different back then. Michael Crabtree wasn't playing, while Vernon Davis suffered an injury during the game that caused him to miss the following week's contest. All Kaepernick had to work with was Anquan Boldin. Richard Sherman locked him down, and that was pretty much it for San Francisco's scoring attack.
Kaepernick now has three dynamic weapons at his disposal, but that was also the case when he battled Seattle in Week 14, and he went just 15-of-29 for 175 yards, one touchdown and an interception. Crabtree hadn't gotten back into form yet, but the fact remains that Kaepernick still struggled to move the chains. Of course, that shouldn't have been much of a surprise, given how dominant the Seahawks' secondary can be. Their No. 1 ranking against the pass was no fluke.
The 49ers won't get much aerially, but they should have more success on the ground. Seattle's defense has been hit or miss against the run all year. For instance, the unit limited Zac Stacy and the Rams to just 15 rushing yards on 15 carries in the regular-season finale, yet the Saints were able to find holes with Khiry Robinson and Mark Ingram last week. The 49ers were restricted to just 84 yards on 22 carries in Week 14, but Frank Gore did manage to break free for a long gain to set up the decisive field goal.
Gore should have another decent outing, as he'll be aided by Kaepernick's mobility. Kaepernick seemed to shy away from running the ball in the regular season, perhaps smartly limiting his exposure to injury. Now that it's a "win or go home" situation, Kaepernick has once again become lethal with his scrambles. The Seahawks will have to pay attention to this, so other things may open up for San Francisco.
SEATTLE OFFENSE: Russell Wilson will always be "Ruskell Wilkens, MVP Canadate" to Mario Migelini, but by the way everyone's been talking, you'd think he was the worst quarterback ever. He went just 9-of-18 for 103 yards in the divisional round, which has every single analyst on TV up in arms. Wilson definitely wasn't at his best in the victory over the Saints, but how could he be considering the conditions were extremely rainy and windy, and he lost his No. 1 receiver in the second quarter?
Wilson is still one of the NFL's top quarterbacks. He's at his best in the clutch, so I expect him to come up with some big plays in this game, especially if Harvin suits up. Harvin didn't suffer any setbacks to his hip, so that's good news. He must get cleared from his concussion, but he's had an extra day to do that. He's a dynamic weapon, so having him on the field would obviously benefit Seattle.
As with Kaepernick, Wilson will have to do some damage on the ground. The 49ers have a tremendous pass rush that has improved in the wake of Aldon Smith rounding into shape. They swarmed Cam Newton last week, though most of the sacks came after a disheartened Newton showed horrific body language on the sideline in the third quarter. Wilson won't give up like Newton did. He happens to be tremendous at eluding pressure and either buying himself time in the pocket or scampering for big gains. There will be plenty of that.
Of course, Seattle will need to establish Marshawn Lynch early and often. Lynch was dominant this past Saturday, trampling the Saints for 140 yards on 28 carries. He said he was refreshed coming off a bye, so this is obviously not good news for the 49ers. San Francisco surrendered 112 rushing yards on 28 attempts to the Packers in the opening round of the playoffs, so there could definitely be opportunities for Lynch to rip off big chunks of yardage.
RECAP: I love the Seahawks this week for the following reasons:
1. You can make lots of money fading dumb public and media overreactions. Many on ESPN have dubbed the 49ers the best team in the NFL, yet that's simply not the case. San Francisco was a dropped Micah Hyde interception away from losing in the first round, and it was the beneficiary of every single call this past week. The Seahawks have been the best team in the league all year, but everyone has suddenly forgotten how great they've been because they're smitten with the 49ers.
2. This spread is way off because the public loves the visitor. Bill Simmons was actually surprised that this line was -3.5; he thought it should be -2.5 or so. He's way off, as my numbers indicate Seattle should be laying 6.5 points. The homefield advantage is worth five points on its own, and I'd estimate the Seahawks are 1.5 points better than the 49ers. Even if you consider them even, Seattle should be -5.
3. Speaking of homefield advantage, one of the rules I have is to bet the Seahawks at home, barring any crazy circumstances (i.e. the Arizona game that was meaningless to them). They're 24-10 against the spread as home favorites since 2007, which is pretty sick.
4. Sensing that they have good value, the sharps are betting the Seahawks. Sure, the sharps pushed with the Packers and lost with the Panthers when they went against the 49ers the past two weeks, but they're going to be right more often than wrong.
I'm going with four units on the Seahawks - one for each reason I love them this week.
FINAL THOUGHTS: The sharps have bet this up to -4 in many places. You can actually still get Seahaks -3 -125 at Bovada and -3.5 at a couple of books, but the fact remains that despite public action, this line is moving in Seattle's favor. That's a great sign if you like the host.
Speaking of the betting action, the Clete Blakeman Rule may come into play. Everyone will be looking to either double up or win back their losses from the first game, and most of the public bettors will be pounding San Francisco. The books have lost big for three consecutive weeks. It can't possibly be four, right?
There's some concern that Percy Harvin is out, but the Seahawks demolished the 49ers without Harvin in the first matchup. Kaepernick is playing better, but Seattle has the best defense in the NFL. Here's a great read if you're worried about Kaepernick and Harvin.
I'm sticking with four units on Seattle. Follow me for updates on Twitter Twitter @walterfootball and good luck to everyone today!
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: Seahawks.
Early money on the 49ers.
Percentage of money on 49ers: 71% (103,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Seahawks.
History: Home Team has won 9 of the last 10 meetings.
Seahawks are 24-10 ATS as home favorites since 2007.
Opening Line: Seahawks -3 -125.
Opening Total: 41.
Weather: Partly cloudy, 43 degrees. Light wind.
Week 20 NFL Pick: Seahawks 24, 49ers 17
Seahawks -3.5 (4 Units) -- Correct; +$400
Over 40 (0 Units) -- Push; $0
Seahawks 23, 49ers 17
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.
Teaser: Patriots +11, 49ers +10 (0.5 Units) -- Correct; +$50
This is a small teaser. I can't see the Patriots losing by double digits, so this is essentially a small middle opportunity on the 49ers.
NFL Picks - Jan. 16
2021 NFL Mock Draft - Jan. 13
Fantasy Football Rankings - Jan. 11
2022 NFL Mock Draft - Nov. 15
NFL Power Rankings - Nov. 14
2020 College Football Recruiting Rankings - April 14
2020 NBA Mock Draft - Sept. 27
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 18, 2020): 1-5 (-$1,430)
Last Week's 2-3 Unit NFL Picks (Week 18, 2020): 0-2 (-$575)
Last Week's 4-5 Unit NFL Picks (Week 18, 2020): 0-2 (-$855)
Last Week Over-Under (Week 18, 2020): 2-3-1 ($0)
Last Week's Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks (Week 18, 2020): $0
2020 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-2, 50.0% (-$135)
2020 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 132-123-6, 52.6% (+$3,280)
2020 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 43-42-3, 50.6% (-$2,650)
2020 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 37-22-1, 62.7% (+$5,515)
2020 Season Over-Under: 137-119-6, 53.5% ($0)
2020 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$375
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% (+$3,585)
2008 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 148-140-7, 51.4% (+$6,105)
2009 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 151-124-9, 54.9% (+$4,235)
2010 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 144-131-8, 52.4% (+$5,880)
2011 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 137-133-12, 50.7% (-$1,335)
2012 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 130-145-8, 47.3% (-$7,445)
2013 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 144-131-8, 52.4% (+$7,825)
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% (-$3,215)
2016 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 148-127-10, 53.8% (+$780)
2017 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 137-140-8, 49.5% (-$4,300)
2018 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 140-134-14, 51.3% (+$845)
2019 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 149-128-9, 53.6% (+$1,200)
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)
2017 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 32-40-3, 43.8% (-$2,395)
2018 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 52-41-2, 55.9% (+$2,670)
2019 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 44-36-2, 55.0% (+$655)
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)
2017 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 20-22-1, 47.6% (-$1,595)
2018 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 27-32-1, 45.8% (-$4,735)
2019 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 37-27-2, 57.8% (+$2,185)
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)
2017 Season Over-Under: 136-139-2, 49.5% (+$640)
2018 Season Over-Under: 118-128-3, 48.0% (-$225)
2019 Season Over-Under: 126-133-4, 48.6% (-$50)
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
2017 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$510
2018 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$1,495
2019 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$1,715
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)
2017 NFL Picks of the Month: 4-2, 66.7% (+$1,040)
2018 NFL Picks of the Month: 4-3, 57.1% (-$640)
2019 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-3-1, 50.0% (-$625)
Career NFL Picks Against The Spread: 2,989-2,760-179, 52.0% (+$13,585)
Career 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 953-858-49 (52.6%)
Career 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 452-396-23 (53.3%)
Career Over-Under: 2,459-2,413-66 (50.5%)
Career Second-Half NFL Picks: 22-15-1 (61.1%)
Career NFL Picks of the Month: 44-29-1 (60.3%)
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.
Cowboys: 11-5 (2014-19: 47-50)
Bears: 6-11 (2014-19: 45-48)
Bucs: 7-9 (2014-19: 44-45)
49ers: 8-8 (2014-19: 53-44)
Eagles: 8-8 (2014-19: 55-46)
Lions: 9-6 (2014-19: 53-42)
Falcons: 9-7 (2014-19: 55-45)
Cardinals: 10-6 (2014-19: 45-50)
Giants: 3-13 (2014-19: 52-41)
Packers: 12-4 (2014-19: 54-46)
Panthers: 13-3 (2014-19: 47-52)
Rams: 5-12 (2014-19: 53-41)
Redskins: 7-8 (2014-19: 47-48)
Vikings: 9-7 (2014-19: 51-45)
Saints: 7-10 (2014-19: 49-50)
Seahawks: 8-9 (2014-19: 43-56)
Bills: 10-7 (2014-19: 52-42)
Bengals: 9-5 (2014-19: 42-52)
Colts: 8-7 (2014-19: 50-45)
Broncos: 9-7 (2014-19: 45-48)
Dolphins: 12-4 (2014-19: 47-46)
Browns: 7-9 (2014-19: 46-44)
Jaguars: 4-11 (2014-19: 41-55)
Chargers: 8-6 (2014-19: 46-49)
Jets: 8-8 (2014-19: 50-40)
Ravens: 5-11 (2014-19: 48-47)
Texans: 10-5 (2014-19: 48-47)
Chiefs: 12-4 (2014-19: 56-50)
Patriots: 6-10 (2014-19: 55-53)
Steelers: 7-10 (2014-19: 56-43)
Titans: 10-7 (2014-19: 49-47)
Raiders: 7-9 (2014-19: 43-52)
Divisional: 43-47 (2011-19: 405-394)
2x Game Edge: 63-60 (2011-19: 213-210)
2x Motivation Edge: 45-30 (2011-19: 347-288)
2x Spread Edge: 42-33 (2011-19: 61-55)
2x Vegas Edge: 25-22 (2011-19: 320-335)
2x Trend Edge: 18-13 (2011-19: 250-228)
Double Edge: 27-21 (2011-19: 122-107)
Triple Edge: 5-4 (2011-19: 21-18)