NFL Picks (Preseason 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 1, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 2, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 3, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 4, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 5, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 6, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 7, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 8, 2015):
NFL Picks (Week 9, 2015):
NFL Picks (2015):
67-76-6 (-$3,300) NFL Picks (2014):
143-133-7 (-$1,885) NFL Picks (2013):
144-131-8 (+$5,580) 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 Nov. 16, 5:15 p.m. ET. Follow @walterfootball
Go to Week 10 NFL Picks - Early Games
Minnesota Vikings (6-2) at Oakland Raiders (4-4)
Line: Raiders by 3. Total: 44.
Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread:
Walt's Calculated Line:
Sunday, Nov 15, 4:05 ET
Comment on this game
The Game. Edge: Vikings.
Survivor Update: We had 2,653 people enter, and had 2,282 still alive after Week 1. And then, Week 2 happened. The Colts, Saints, Ravens and Dolphins murdered almost everyone, and as a consequence, there were only 164 players remaining. We're now down to 14 now, as we lost 10 players last week, thanks to the Saints crapping the bed against the Titans.
If you're still alive, make sure you get your WalterFootball.com 2015 NFL Survivor Pool
Oh, and, check out our Fantasy Football Who to Start Weekly Rankings
for weekly fantasy start-sit advice.
There was no spread on this game Wednesday morning because Teddy Bridgewater's status was unknown. Gregg Williams paid his players to knock Bridgewater out, so the Vikings didn't know if they'd have their starting quarterback available for this contest. It's a shame, as Bridgewater seems like a nice guy and shouldn't be subject to bounties. Fortunately for the Vikings, Bridgewater has cleared concussion protocol.
Williams targeted the wrong guy, anyway. A highly motivated Adrian Peterson exploded against a tough St. Louis run defense this past week, and he could pick up where he left off against the Raiders, who just surrendered nearly 200 rushing yards against DeAngelo Williams. Granted, Oakland was preoccupied with defending an unstoppable Antonio Brown, so its attention was elsewhere, but Peterson is also better than Williams.
Peterson will open things up for Bridgewater. I like Bridgewater's chances against a secondary that struggled last week in the wake of Charles Woodson's shoulder injury. Woodson went down early versus Pittsburgh and then was never the same. If he's not fully recovered, the Raiders will have trouble dealing with the emerging Stefon Diggs.
I've received some flak from clueless Raider fans who are unaware that I've been betting their team every week. Their issue, besides their own insecurity, is that I once wrote that Derek Carr wasn't a good quarterback. Well, he wasn't. There's a reason Johnny Manziel was chosen before him. However, sometimes, quarterbacks take to good coaching and improve, and that's what happened with Carr both last year and this year. Thanks to the influences around him, as well as some terrific blocking, Carr has evolved into a talented gun-slinger.
Carr has been hot, but he has a tough test this week against a Minnesota secondary ranked eighth in YPA. The Vikings have surrendered more than 250 passing yards just once all year, and that was to Matthew Stafford in garbage time. However, part of the reason they've been so successful is that they get after the quarterback so effectively. They may have trouble doing so in this matchup; as mentioned, Carr has an excellent offensive line shielding him.
The Vikings are also difficult to run against - Todd Gurley didn't even hit the century mark against them - and it'll help their cause if Latavius Murray is out. Murray is in concussion protocol, so Marcel Reece and Taiwan Jones could split the carries. I don't see either being very effective.
Can I say how disappointed I am in this spread? This was "pick" a week ago, so I was hoping for someting similar. These teams are about even - they're two spots apart in my NFL Power Rankings
- so with the Vikings potentially looking ahead to the Packers, I was planning on making Oakland a big play.
Unfortunately, the Raiders are favored by three, which is closer to what it should be. I'm still going to pick them, but for a smaller amount. The Vikings, coming off an overtime victory, could be distracted with Green Bay on the horizon. Also, Minnesota hasn't played nearly as well on the road. Forgetting the Detroit victory, because the Lions are the worst team in the league, the Vikings lost at San Francisco and Denver, and needed some last-second luck (Jeremy Langford's third-down drop) to take down Chicago. The Raiders are a good team, and I like them coming off a loss.
This is going to be a two-unit wager if Rodney Hudson suits up. Hudson is banged up and missed practice Wednesday. If he doesn't play, the Raiders' offense will struggle, as they don't have an adequate replacement for him. I would even consider picking Minnesota if Hudson is unavailable. He's one of the top centers in the NFL, and that position is extremely important; everything I wrote about Carr's great protection would be nullified if his Pro Bowl center weren't available. Check back later in the week for updates, or follow me @walterfootball
I was waiting on Rodney Hudson, and it doesn't look like he'll play. It's a shame, as I would've bet the Raiders for a couple of units otherwise. The center position is very important, and Hudson is one of the best centers. Still, the Vikings don't look good either with the Packers on the horizon.
There are 30-mph winds forecasted for this game, so the top bet here might be the under.
The Psychology. Edge: Raiders.
Teddy Bridgewater sounds like he'll play, and the Vikings could be looking past the Raiders with Green Bay on the horizon.
The Vegas. Edge: Vikings.
Slight lean on the host.
Percentage of money on Oakland: 67% (25,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: None.
Vikings are 15-26 ATS in outdoor road games since 2008.
Raiders are 7-21 ATS as a favorite since 2006.
Opening Line: Raiders -3.
Opening Total: 43.5.
Week 10 NFL Pick: Raiders 23, Vikings 17
Raiders -3 (0 Units) -- Incorrect; $0
Under 44 (0 Units) -- Push; $0
Vikings 30, Raiders 14
Kansas City Chiefs (3-5) at Denver Broncos (7-1)
Line: Broncos by 3.5. Total: 41.5.
Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Broncos -7.5.
Walt's Calculated Line: Broncos -9.
Sunday, Nov 15, 4:25 ET
Comment on this game
The Game. Edge: Broncos.
Emmitt on the Brink is back for Season 8! Episode 9 is posted. Emmitt, Ray Rice and Dianna Marie Russini are kidnapped and taken to Jared Fogle's dungeon, where they have to plot their escape.
DENVER OFFENSE: Peyton Manning did fine against the Packers two weeks ago, but every other quarterback has torched Green Bay. Manning struggled this past Sunday, much like he has against most opponents this year. Manning has lost it, despite what the media says following an occasional solid game of his. However, has a chance to repeat what he did versus the Packers in contest.
The Chiefs have been atrocious against the pass this year. They'd be ranked in the bottom 10 in terms of YPA allowed if it wasn't for their previous two games against Landry Jones and an incompetent Matthew Stafford. Manning has been bad by his standards, but he's still better than those two quarterbacks. He should be able to move the chains somewhat consistently, especially thanks to his two dynamic receivers.
Part of the reason the Broncos were able to score so much against the Packers was because they ran so effectively. Green Bay's ground defense has been atrocious, but the Chiefs have actually been solid in that regard. It's hard to trust Denver's offensive line right now, so I don't see C.J. Anderson or Ronnie Hillman having any sort of success.
KANSAS CITY OFFENSE: While some aspects of Denver's scoring attack will work, the same can't be said for the Chiefs' unit. With Jamaal Charles out, the Chiefs are going to have trouble moving the ball versus the Broncos' dominant defense.
There's only one thing going for the Chiefs, and that's the fact that DeMarcus Ware and Aqib Talib will both be out of the lineup. Ware is nursing a back injury, while Talib was suspended for poking an Indianapolis player in the eyes. Both would be missed against normal teams, but Alex Smith sucks. With Charles gone, his options in the dink-and-dunk game are limited to Travis Kelce and Jeremy Maclin. Both are quality play-makers, but the Broncos don't really have to worry about anyone else, and it's not like Smith is suddenly going to develop the courage to go deep on them.
Running with Charcandrick West won't be an option either. West had a solid performance against the Lions, but Denver's defense is on the other end of the spectrum. Whereas Detroit is 24th against the rush, the Broncos are No. 1, giving up just 3.2 YPC to the opposition.
RECAP: Andy Reid is usually fantastic off a bye - 11-5 ATS in his career - but two years ago, he took an undefeated Kansas City squad following a week off and lost by double digits in Denver. This Chiefs squad is obviously not nearly as talented as that one was, yet this spread of 5.5 is lower than the one in 2013, which was eight. It's also worth noting that while Reid has an impressive career post-bye record, he's just 2-3 ATS in his past five years after having a week off.
I like the Broncos here; they're vastly superior and match up very well. I don't see the Chiefs moving the chains at all, while Manning should have some success against an awful secondary. It's also worth noting what Kansas City has done on the road this year versus top competition. The team was blown out at both Green Bay and Cincinnati - and this was with Charles in the lineup - and later failed to cover the spread at Minnesota, losing by six. If the Vikings beat the Chiefs by six as hosts, why can't the Broncos prevail by that amount or more?
This is a three-unit wager. I'm a bit concerned about the spread dropping, but no sort of line movement during the week can concretely indicate whom the sharps are going to side with by kickoff, as there has been a ton of phantom line movement this year. I'm going to trust my numbers, which say that Denver should be laying nine in this matchup.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I'm dropping this to two units, as it sounds like Emmanuel Sanders may not play. That could be the reason this spread has dropped a couple of points. I still like the Broncos, though.
SUNDAY NOTES: I'm once again dropping a unit, so I'm down to one. There have been reports that Peyton Manning has a bum foot, so he could be even worse this week. That, along with Sanders' injury, could mean a Chiefs cover. I still think this line is too low, however.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: Chiefs.
People are betting the Broncos. No surprise.
Percentage of money on Denver: 72% (41,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Chiefs.
History: Broncos have won the last 8 meetings.
Andy Reid is 11-5 ATS off a bye.
Opening Line: Broncos -7.
Opening Total: 42.5.
Week 10 NFL Pick: Broncos 27, Chiefs 17
Broncos -3.5 (1 Unit) -- Incorrect; -$110
Over 41.5 (0 Units) -- Correct; $0
Survivor Pick (5-4) - NFL Survivor Pick Advice
Chiefs 29, Broncos 13
New England Patriots (8-0) at New York Giants (5-4)
Line: Patriots by 7.5. Total: 53.5.
Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Patriots -7.
Walt's Calculated Line: Patriots -3.
Sunday, Nov 15, 4:25 ET
Comment on this game
The Game. Edge: Patriots.
A reminder that Jerks of the Week for this week is up, so just click the link. This week's jerks entry is Jerks at My Sister's Wedding - Part 2.
NEW ENGLAND OFFENSE: The Patriots are drawing acclaim for their high-powered scoring unit, but there are concerns on this side of the ball. The offensive line has been an issue for some time now, as Tom Brady is constantly getting pressured when he's not dinking and dunking. The front has dealt with injuries, and Sebastian Vollmer can be added to the list. Vollmer was knocked out with a head injury against the Redskins, and it's unclear if he'll be able to play. His absence will be huge against a pass rush that is better now with Jason Pierre-Paul on the field.
Of course, the big loss last week was Dion Lewis, who tore his ACL. Lewis still wasn't a household name, but he was a very dynamic player in the open field. He was a big reason for Brady's success this year, and the offense will not be the same without him. New England will still be able to pound the ball with LeGarrette Blount, who has a favorable matchup versus a defense that just lost run-plugger Johnathan Hankins, but Lewis' absence will adversely affect the passing game.
Brady will still be very effective as long as he has Rob Gronkowski and Julian Edelman at his disposal, and despite what I wrote earlier, the Patriots will have success moving the chains. The Giants' defense simply has too many holes, as it has surrendered an average of 315.3 passing yards per game this season.
NEW YORK OFFENSE: The Patriots have been much better on this side of the ball than expected. The secondary lost Darrelle Revis and Brandon Browner this offseason, but that hasn't mattered too much thus far because Malcolm Butler and Logan Ryan have both played well. However, neither has been overly dominant, and it's not like they've been tested very much. Since the opener, in which the defense struggled, New England has gone up against the Bills, Jaguars, Brandon Weeden-led Cowboys, Colts (with an injured Andrew Luck), Dolphins and Redskins.
In other words, the Patriots have yet to battle a dominant receiver like Odell Beckham Jr., and Eli Manning is easily the best, healthy quarterback they've played since Week 2. I expect the Giants to have lots of success aerially, as they have for most of the year. There was a rough stretch in which Beckham was hobbled with a hamstring injury, but he's 100 percent now. Bill Belichick will scheme to stop him, but teams haven't had success doing that when he's been 100 percent.
The Patriots will at least be able to focus on the Giants' passing game because they'll stop the run pretty easily. They're ninth against the rush despite losing Vince Wilfork this past offseason, and New York doesn't have an effective ground attack anyhow.
RECAP: It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Patriots ended up losing this game straight up. They've beaten a large number of bad/underwhelming teams this season, and while the Giants aren't great, they've had New England's number over the years. As detailed earlier, the Patriots haven't really taken on a dynamic passing attack since the opener - their defense struggled in that contest - and they're dealing with a ridiculous number of injuries right now.
And we're just talking about winning the game. The spread is -7.5. That's 4.5 points higher than where it should be. I have the Patriots as -3, which is the correct number, as far as I'm concerned. However, the books had to inflate this number because they're getting tons of action on New England. Let's take advantage by getting fantastic value with the Giants.
I'm going to cap this at three units. I'm scared to bet against Brady after that Pick of the Month debacle, but the Patriots can still win while I get this pick correct.
FINAL THOUGHTS: I still love the Giants, and I'm hoping this number keeps rising. This spread is out of control - it would be -13.5 at New England, which is what the number was versus Washington, and the Patriots have so many injury issues.
SUNDAY NOTES: It looks like the sharps are starting to take the Giants, as this spread has fallen from +7.5 to +7. The former number is still available on Bovada, so I'll lock that in.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: Giants.
The public will be on the Patriots again.
Percentage of money on New England: 75% (46,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Giants.
Patriots are 19-10 ATS on the road vs. NFC opponents since 2001.
Tom Brady is 183-59 as a starter (138-99 ATS).
Eli Manning is 35-25 ATS as an underdog since 2007.
Opening Line: Patriots -7.
Opening Total: 55.
Week 10 NFL Pick: Patriots 27, Giants 24
Giants +7.5 (3 Units) -- Correct; +$300
Under 53.5 (0 Units) -- Correct; $0
Patriots 27, Giants 26
Arizona Cardinals (6-2) at Seattle Seahawks (4-4)
Line: Seahawks by 3. Total: 43.5.
Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Seahawks -3.5.
Walt's Calculated Line: Seahawks -2.
Sunday, Nov 15, 8:30 ET
Comment on this game
The Game. Edge: None.
I have some bad news: The douche bags monitoring Facebook comments have stopped me from posting as Mario Migelini. I can actually still write stuff on the ESPN comment boards, but no one who isn't friends with me can see it. I tried...
But the posts were ignored because they weren't seen.
This is yet another example of idealistic tools horribly silencing free speech. I've complained about this all season because I haven't been able to post as Vivian Williamson or Kevin Reilly, and I have to echo those sentiments again. It sucks when people in a position of power are oppressive, un-American tw**s who have no sense of humor. If there were more of these idiots around, the world would be a miserable place.
Since I can't troll as Mario for the time being, I might as well troll as myself, right? Here's some a**hole on my Facebook page who was trying to take credit for being right about the Eagles, when the Cowboys, as underdogs that went to overtime, were the right side:
As always, the only way to deal with a miserable troll is to troll them yourself!
SEATTLE OFFENSE: I'm interested to see what the Seahawks accomplished during their bye week. Russell Wilson has taken the most sacks in the NFL this season, which is ridiculous considering how mobile he is. Seattle had a week off to change some of their personnel/schemes up front, so I'm eager to see what they come up with. The team certainly doesn't have the talent to make the offensive line a solid unit, but a couple of positive changes could help.
The Cardinals don't get after the quarterback that well, but based on how the Seattle line played prior to the bye, they'll still have success putting heat on Wilson. Arizona has the talented secondary to shut down Wilson's targets - not that Wilson had much to work with in the first place. Either way, advancing the ball aerially will be challenging, so Wilson will have to keep securing first downs with his legs.
Marshawn Lynch will have to pick up the slack as well, but that could be a problem for two reasons. First, Arizona has the No. 5-ranked ground defense in terms of YPC. Second, Lynch hasn't been as explosive this season, averaging just 3.6 yards per carry - less than a full yard from what he accumulated in 2014. The Cardinals haven't surrendered 100 rushing yards to an opposing team's running backs since Week 4, and I don't expect that to change.
ARIZONA OFFENSE: With the Seahawks' scoring unit bound to struggle, the defense will have to step up. That might have been a challenge earlier in the year when many players in this group were struggling, but they've improved recently. Most notably, Richard Sherman and Kam Chancellor have both performed on a higher level after playing woefully to begin the year.
However, there are still some issues in the secondary, particularly with Cary Williams and Deshawn Shead. The Cardinals have three dynamic receivers, so while Seattle will be able to take one away - probably Larry Fitzgerald - the other two should shine. Thus, I expect John Brown and Michael Floyd to put together very strong outings. To counter this, the Seahawks will have to pressure Carson Palmer heavily, and they might be able to accomplish this with Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett. The latter especially has a favorable matchup.
The Cardinals won't be able to run the ball to take pressure off Palmer. They've established the ground game well this year with Chris Johnson, but the Seahawks are also terrific versus the rush; they're right behind Arizona, ranking sixth in terms of YPC.
RECAP: Though the Cardinals have an underwhelming strength of schedule, I believe they're the better team. Unlike the Seahawks, they don't have a glaring weakness. As I said, things can change - perhaps the blocking will improve after the bye - but I have my doubts.
The Seahawks are still favored by a full field goal because of a couple of misconceptions. I know some are taking them because of home-field advantage and Lynch coming off rest. However, Lynch hasn't played well this year, while Seattle hasn't been nearly as dominant as a host recently. The team nearly lost to the Lions and went down to the Panthers. It seems like the 12th Man mystique is gone.
I'm taking the Cardinals, but I'm not betting this game. Arizona is better, but not by much. I also recall what the Seahawks did prior to the bye last year, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they went on a tear.
FINAL THOUGHTS: As discussed on the podcast, Matvei loves the Seahawks. I don't have a strong opinion on this game. There hasn't been any sharp movement, but perhaps that'll change on Sunday.
SUNDAY NOTES: I'm still on the Cardinals, but I don't love this pick. It's worth noting though that the sharps are betting Arizona for the most part. The books don't want to move off +3, however, because Seattle -2.5 will be pounded, setting up an ugly middle. I actually think there's a good chance the Seahawks will win by exactly three, so this is not an enticing game at all to me.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: None.
Slight lean on the host.
Percentage of money on Arizona: 58% (95,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Seahawks.
History: Seahawks have won 4 of the past 5 meetings.
Bruce Arians is 27-13 ATS as head coach of the Cardinals.
Seahawks are 33-14 ATS as home favorites since 2007.
Opening Line: Seahawks -3.
Opening Total: 45.
Week 10 NFL Pick: Seahawks 17, Cardinals 16
Cardinals +3 (0 Units) -- Correct; $0
Under 43.5 (0 Units) -- Incorrect; $0
Cardinals 39, Seahawks 32
Houston Texans (3-5) at Cincinnati Bengals (8-0)
Line: Bengals by 11. Total: 47.
Las Vegas Hilton Advance Point Spread: Bengals -9.5.
Walt's Calculated Line: Bengals -15.
Monday, Nov 16, 8:30 ET
Comment on this game
The Game. Edge: Bengals.
This week on ESPN, we're going to have Mike Tirico and Jon Gruden calling the shots instead the great preseason homers like Kevin Reilly, Ron Wolfley and Don Tollefson, inept ESPN guys Emmitt, Herman Edwards and Matt Millen, and mindless automatons like Dan Fouts. Here's what it would sound like if these seven clowns (and some special guests) were calling this game:
Reilly: Welcome to the city of Cincinnati, where the Bengals will take on the Houston Oilers! Guys, I have two topics I'd like to discuss. Cincinnati is known as the queen city, and Herm is a queen, like super gay, and...
Millen: REALLY!? Oh, wow. Herm... why did you never tell me? You're not 100-percent USDA Man, but I'll happily ram you with my kielbasas after the game, tee-hee.
Herm: HERM'S NOT GAY! HERM'S DEFINITELY NOT GAY! HERM'S NOT A HOMOSEXUAL! HERM'S NOT A HOMO! HERM DOESN'T LIKE IT UP THE BUTT! HERM IS HETEROSEXUAL! BUT NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY! NOT ANYTHING WRONG WITH LIKING GUYS! NOT ANYTHING WRONG WITH GETTING IT UP THE BACKSIDE! NOT ANYTHING WRONG WITH KISSING BOYS! HERM'S FINE WITH THAT! HERM'S OK WITH THAT! BUT HERM DOESN'T LIKE TO DO THAT! NO WAY, JOSE! IN BOTH WAYS! I MEAN NO WAY, AND I DON'T WANT TO KISS JOSE! I DON'T KNOW WHO JOSE IS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO KISS HIM! WHO'S JOSE!? DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO JOSE IS!? WHY'S HERM TALKING ABOUT JOSE!? WHY!? Uhh... umm...
Charles Davis: Jose is an interesting name, Kevin. Did you know that Jose is a Spanish name, Kevin? Did you know that Jose is Spanish for Joseph, Kevin? Let's discuss some Spanish to English translations, Kevin. Did you know that Alberto is Spanish for Albert, Kevin? How about Eduardo, Kevin? That's Spanish for Edward, Kevin. What about..
Reilly: YOU DISCUSSED SPANISH-TO-ENGLISH NAME TRANSLATIONS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, A**HOLE! I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS S*** ANYMORE! WHY DON'T YOU GO DIE WITH HERM!?!?! Anyway, the second topic I wanted to discuss was that Andy Dalton is a ginger. Does anyone else think this is embarrassing for him? I mean, gingers have no souls after all!
Emmitt: Mike, or... uhh... Eduardo, I no agree on you that gingers don't have solds. They most definitely have solds. I was once in the supermarket, the market that is super, and I was looking down the island and I sawed that they selling ginger in the supermarket, the market that is super, so ginger definitely have solds in the super market, the market that is super.
Fouts: And here's what he means by "supermarket, the market that is super." Supermarket is one word that is actually two words combined together. This is what English majors call a combination word. Because the word is combined, and combined is a form of combination. Let's examine the two words that are combined. The first word is super. This is another word for "great." They could call a supermarket a greatmarket, which would make a lot of sense. It wouldn't make sense if they called it mediocremarket. That would be bad, so no one would go. Badmarket wouldn't work either. They could only call it supermarket and greatmarket, since there are no synonyms remaining in the English language for those words. Now, the second word is market. This has one of two meanings. It either means that people can buy stuff there, since it's a market, or it's where stocks are sold. I'm never sure which type of market I'll be walking into when I go to the supermarket, but I know it'll be super, that's for sure.
Wolfley: I ONCE SPENT THREE WEEKS LIVING IN A SUPERMARKET. WHEN THEY CLOSED UP, I HID BEHIND THE BOXES IN THE CEREAL AISLE SO NO ONE WOULD SEE ME. I BECAME BEST FRIENDS WITH COUNT CHOCULA THAT WAY. WE ACTUALLY PLAYED POKER ON SATURDAY NIGHT.
Tollefson: Guys, we're getting off-track here. I think we're missing the point. Kevin said that gingers have no souls, but I disagree. When I recently kidnapped this beautiful red-headed woman, and I made her cook and clean naked in my house, she cooked and cleaned with so much passion that it made me realize that she did, in fact, have a soul.
Reilly: She must have been faking it. I don't buy it. Andy Dalton has no soul, and Herm is a queen WHO DESERVES TO DIE! HA! We'll be back right after this!
CINCINNATI OFFENSE: ESPN is featuring J.J. Watt in its promos for this game. Unfortunately for the Texans, having Watt on the field won't matter very much even though he might be the best player in the league. Perhaps if Watt were cloned three times, but he just doesn't have any help. His fellow defensive players have been torched by the likes of the Chiefs and Dolphins, so how are they going to deal with the Bengals' high-powered scoring attack?
Andy Dalton has been terrific this year, and there's no reason to think that he won't torch Houston's injury-ravaged secondary. The Texans simply don't have the personnel to deal with all of his weapons. They also lack a consistent pass rush outside of Watt, and Dalton is very well protected. Like every other team, Cincinnati will double- and triple-team Watt, yet the other Houston players won't be able to do anything.
The Bengals also figure to run pretty easily on the Texans, who are 25th against the rush in terms of YPC. Jeremy Hill has been a disappointment, so perhaps the coaching staff will continue feeding the ball to Giovani Bernard, who has been much more effective.
HOUSTON OFFENSE: Like the Texans, the Bengals also struggle versus ground attacks, even ranking worse (30th). However, Houston doesn't really have the personnel to take advantage of that liability. Arian Foster is gone, and Alfred Blue just isn't good enough to take advantage of positive matchups. For instance, he was limited to just 39 yards on 14 carries versus the Titans prior to the bye. Also, if the Bengals are up big, Houston will have to abandon the run.
Brian Hoyer will have success throwing the ball to DeAndre Hopkins, but that's about it. Hoyer, who was sacked seven times against the Titans in Week 8, won't stand much of a chance against Cincinnati's strong pass rush, and he'll struggle to throw into the Bengals' top-10 aerial defense.
RECAP: The Bengals are one of my top picks this week. It's seldom a good idea to take a big home favorite late in the year when they don't really have all that much to play for, but as I detailed on the early-games page, this is not true on nationally televised games. The Bengals will be focused, so they should be able to dismantle the Texans, who have been destroyed in so many games this year.
My only fear here is that Houston will achieve a back-door cover at the very end, but the Bengals hung on and prevailed against the spread last week, so I don't see why they wouldn't have similar success against an even-worse opponent.
SUNDAY NOTES: I'm probably wrong about this, but I'm locking in the Bengals at -11. Most books follow what Pinnacle does, and it just moved Cincinnati to -11.5.
FINAL THOUGHTS: Ugh, yet another pick I locked in prematurely. I'm shocked that the sharps aren't betting the Bengals. Why wouldn't they take one of the best teams in the NFL versus one of the worst squads in the league when the former has no reason not to show up, given that it has to keep pace with New England for homefield advantage? Professional money has moved this line down, but I'm thinking that it might be contrarian/shrap/Fezzik-type action. Fading the Bengals doesn't make any sense to me, and I still love them in this game. Having said that, the Texans will probably cover somehow, based on how crappy my picks have been this
week year decade.
The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.
The Vegas. Edge: Texans.
The public betting the favorite on a Monday night? Wow!
Percentage of money on Cincinnati: 65% (62,000 bets)
The Trends. Edge: Texans.
Bengals are 15-5 ATS at home since 2013.
Bengals are 26-38 ATS as a favorite since 2007.
Marvin Lewis is 8-12 ATS in nationally televised regular-season games.
Opening Line: Bengals -10.5.
Opening Total: 47.
Week 10 NFL Pick: Bengals 34, Texans 10
Bengals -11 (4 Units) -- Incorrect; -$440
Under 47 (0 Units) -- Correct; $0
Texans 10, Bengals 6
Week 10 NFL Picks - Early Games
Buffalo at New York Jets,
Detroit at Green Bay,
Dallas at Tampa Bay,
Carolina at Tennessee,
Chicago at St. Louis,
New Orleans at Washington,
Miami at Philadelphia,
Cleveland at Pittsburgh,
Jacksonville at Baltimore
A list of some of my favorite team/player prop picks this week
(Offense & defensive ROY picks to be counted
whenever winners are announced.) Picks carried over on a week-to-week basis will be in black.
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)