NFL Picks Against the Spread: Week 18, 2015

NFL Picks (Preseason 2015): 7-10-1 (-$1,420)
NFL Picks (Week 1, 2015): 10-6 (+$940)
NFL Picks (Week 2, 2015): 9-7 (-$895)
NFL Picks (Week 3, 2015): 7-9 (-$870)
NFL Picks (Week 4, 2015): 6-8-1 (-$360)
NFL Picks (Week 5, 2015): 6-6-2 (+$55)
NFL Picks (Week 6, 2015): 5-8-1 (-$690)
NFL Picks (Week 7, 2015): 4-9-1 (-$860)
NFL Picks (Week 8, 2015): 5-8-1 (+$520)
NFL Picks (Week 9, 2015): 8-5 (+$280)
NFL Picks (Week 10, 2015): 6-8 (-$610)
NFL Picks (Week 11, 2015): 5-6-3 (-$2,010)
NFL Picks (Week 12, 2015): 6-10 (-$1,050)
NFL Picks (Week 13, 2015): 8-7-1 (+$195)
NFL Picks (Week 14, 2015): 11-5 (+$1,550)
NFL Picks (Week 15, 2015): 7-7-2 (+$110)
NFL Picks (Week 16, 2015): 8-8 (+$390)
NFL Picks (Week 17, 2015): 8-8 (+$910)

NFL Picks (2015): 126-135-9 (-$3,815)
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): 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 Jan. 9, 4:05 p.m. ET. Follow @walterfootball for updates.

Go to Week 18 NFL Picks – Saturday Games

Seattle Seahawks (10-6) at Minnesota Vikings (11-5)
Line: Seahawks by 6. Total: 40.
Walt’s Calculated Line: Seahawks -1.5.
Sunday, Jan. 10, 1:00 ET
Comment on this game

The Game. Edge: Seahawks.

Emmitt on the Brink Season 8 concludes! Emmitt and his crew defeated Kim Jong-un and saved America. Read all about Emmitt’s heroics and how Roger Goodell was involved with Kim Jong-un. Also, Greg Hardy and Jared Fogle finally receive justice.

A reminder that Jerks of the Week for this week is up, so just click the link. This week’s jerks entry is the top five jerks of 2015, including Matthew McConaughey and Jerry Jackson.

HATE MAIL: Lots of hate mail this week, as usual. Here’s a long one from the comment boards, written by someone who was disgruntled despite the winning week:

I mean, yeah, one week doesn’t trump five years, but five weeks might. Right?

Here are a couple random ones:

The Callahan hate mail reminds me of the sort of feedback I used to receive when I was good at handicapping games. I’d go like 11-5, +$1,060, yet someone would complain about a two-unit loss. I’m glad to get something like this. Hopefully I’m on the right track.

SEATTLE OFFENSE: While the Steelers are the “most dangerous team” in the playoffs, the Seahawks are the “team no one wants to play.” The media is using that phrase to describe Seattle after Russell Wilson ran circles around the Cardinals in a 36-6 Week 17 blowout.

Based on the way the public is pounding the Seahawks, as well as what the results were in the Week 13 matchup, many are expecting the Seahawks to score at will in the second meeting. However, there are two factors to consider. First, the Vikings didn’t have three of their best defensive players on the field for that contest, as Linval Joseph, Anthony Barr and Harrison Smith were all out. Having them on the field may not have won Minnesota the game, or anything, but the Vikings simply had no chance to stop Seattle’s roaring offense without three Pro Bowl-caliber players. Barr and Smith are back, while Joseph is questionable with a toe injury. He didn’t play in Week 17, but perhaps the Vikings were saving him for the playoffs.

The second factor was that Thomas Rawls trampled the Vikings in the first meeting, gaining 101 yards on just 19 carries. Rawls may not be a catchy ESPN name yet, but he was the best running back the Seahawks had all year, as Marshawn Lynch was clearly hindered by an injury. Rawls has to be mentioned because he won’t be available in the rematch. Lynch might be, but there’s no telling how healthy he is.

With all of this in mind, I think the Vikings can do a good job of containing the Seahawks. That may sound crazy after Seattle’s 36-point output at Arizona, but remember that the Seahawks were limited to just 17 points versus the Rams. Minnesota’s defense, when healthy, is every bit as good as St. Louis’.

MINNESOTA OFFENSE: I don’t think the Vikings’ defense has much to worry with in this matchup. The offense, on the other hand, is a different story. Teddy Bridgewater has yet to win a big game because of what he’s done. He did beat the Packers in Week 17, but the Vikings won in spite of him. He went just 10-of-19 for 99 yards and an interception at Lambeau, so if it wasn’t for his defense and running game being terrific, he wouldn’t have prevailed.

Bridgewater obviously faces a tough test here, as the Seahawks have a stalwart stop unit. Their secondary isn’t as great as it has been in the past, thanks to a lack of depth at cornerback, but it’s not like Seattle has to cover dynamic receivers. Stefon Diggs is the best the Vikings have, and while he’s OK, Richard Sherman would be able to cover him while half-asleep. The Seahawk pass rush, meanwhile, isn’t great, but it’s effective enough to rattle Bridgewater, who doesn’t have the best protection.

As for the run defense, the Seahawks are fourth in that regard, limiting the opposition to 3.57 YPC. Since Week 10, Seattle has surrendered more than 77 yards on the ground only once. That actually happened to be to the Rams, so perhaps there’s a bit of hope here for the Vikings. If Todd Gurley could do OK versus the Seahawks – he tallied 83 yards on 19 carries – perhaps someone of Peterson’s talent level could have similar success.

RECAP: I wrote that the spreads in the first two playoff games didn’t make much sense to me. This one doesn’t either, and it might be more out of whack than the others. Think about it: Seahawks -6 at Minnesota is -12 if it’s in Seattle, at the very least (maybe even -13, given their great homefield advantage.) The Seahawks were -11 over the Rams two weeks ago. That means this spread is saying that St. Louis is at least one point better than the Vikings, which is just absurd.

This spread is inflated because the public is smitten with the Seahawks. They just watched Seattle trash their previous Super Bowl favorite Cardinals, 36-6, and they fully remember that the Seahawks destroyed the Vikings back in Week 13, 38-7. Let’s clear up two misconceptions, shall we? First of all, Arizona didn’t try hard in the finale. The Cardinals knew that the Panthers would demolish the Buccaneers, so they were aware that the Week 17 contest was meaningless. Showing absolutely no energy, they let the Seahawks walk all over them. Thus, that result was incredibly misleading. Once again, Seattle lost to the Rams two weeks ago, and it struggled to put away the Browns and Ravens before that.

Second, I already discussed that the Vikings were shorthanded against the Seahawks back in Week 13. They’ll have at least two of their stud defenders back, while Rawls won’t be on the field this time. Minnesota has improved substantially since that contest. It nearly won in Arizona, and then proceeded to demolish both the Bears and Giants before closing the season out with a victory at Lambeau.

I like the Vikings a lot here, and if I were more confident in Bridgewater, this would be my January NFL Pick of the Month. As it stands now, I’m going to place three units on the home dog.

WEDNESDAY THOUGHTS: And we have our first sharp action of the week. The pros pounced on the Vikings +6, probably because they realized they won’t be getting a better number. This spread is down to +4.5 or +5 depending on the book, though it can still be obtained at +6 -115 on Bovada. I’d consider locking that in.

FRIDAY NOTES: Some news broke Friday night that Marshawn Lynch is going to be out. This spread will probably drop in response – it’s already -4 at Pinnacle – so I want to lock in the +6 available at Bovada.

FINAL THOUGHTS: So, it turns out I’m not a prophet. I mean, I guess you guys knew that based on how my picks have gone this season, but I had a dream last night that this spread shot up to -6.5 in most places, -7 at the sharp books, and -6 at Bovada. In other words, the sharps were all over Seattle. That, however, is not the case at all. This number has remained at -4 at the sharp books (Pinnacle, 5Dimes), and it’s still -6 at Bovada, albeit at -115.

I still really like the Vikings. This weather is going to keep the score down, which automatically makes you look at the underdog. The Seahawks are favored by way too much at -6, and remember that they lost to the Rams two weeks ago. They’re not as hot as everyone thinks they are, and they’re definitely worse without Lynch in the lineup.

The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.

The Vegas. Edge: Vikings.

There’s more action on the Seahawks than any other team this weekend.

Percentage of money on Seattle: 75% (101,000 bets)

The Trends. Edge: Vikings.

Seahawks are 29-37 ATS on the road since 2006 if they’re not coming off an away loss.

Opening Line: Seahawks -7.

Opening Total: 42.

Weather: .

Week 18 NFL Pick: Seahawks 19, Vikings 17
Vikings +6 (3 Units) — Correct; +$300
Under 40 (0 Units) — Correct; $0
Seahawks 10, Vikings 9

Green Bay Packers (10-6) at Washington Redskins (9-7)
Line: Redskins by 1. Total: 47.
Walt’s Calculated Line: Redskins -1.
Sunday, Jan. 10, 4:30 ET
Comment on this game

The Game. Edge: None.

This week on FOX, we’re going to have Joe Buck and Troy Aikman 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 Washington, home of the Redskins and Seahawks! Guys, I’m super pissed at the NFL and I wrote Roger Goodell a letter expressing my frustration. The Redskins are representing the NFC East in the playoffs, which is BS because they are named after Asians and Asians are pissed off at them. Plus, the Redskins have sucked for years. My Philadelphia Eagles would be better representatives of the division, so they deserve to be in the playoffs over the dirty Redskins, or should I say, Dirty Red Asians.

Emmitt: Mike, or… uhh… Mr. Eko, I do not know if you awareness of these but the National League of Conferences have something call the standing. The standing where you can find each team and how many win and lossed it have. It also have other number I do not comprehend for the life of myselves, but the team are order on the number of win he have. The Redskin have more win than Eagle, so he deserve to be in the doggone playoff. It is fair and… uhh… the shape with four equal side and four 90-degree right angle, I forget what it called.

Herm: IT’S A SQUARE! THE ANSWER IS A SQUARE! THE SHAPE IS A SQUARE! WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT IS A SQUARE! A SQUARE HAS FOUR EQUAL SIDES! NOT THREE EQUAL SIDES! NOT FIVE EQUAL SIDES! NOT TWO EQUAL SIDES! NOT NINE EQUAL SIDES! FOUR EQUAL SIDES! IT ALSO HAS FOUR RIGHT ANGLES! THE ANGLES ARE RIGHT! NOT LEFT! RIGHT! NOT DOWN! NOT UP! NOT NORTH! NOT SOUTH! RIGHT! SQUARE IS A SPECIAL SHAPE! IT’S REALLY SPECIAL! IT’S CRAZY SPECIAL! THAT’S BECAUSE A SQUARE IS ALWAYS A RECTANGLE! BUT A RECTANGLE ISN’T ALWAYS A SQUARE! IT’S LIKE A PARADOX! HERM HATES PARADOXES! BUT HERM LOVES SQUARES! HERM’S CRAZY ABOUT SQUARES! HERM’S CRAZY! REAL CRAZY! LOVES HIS SQUARES! BUT HATES TRIANGLES! HERM HATES TRIANGLES! WHY DOES HERM HATE TRIANGLES!? I DON’T KNOW! LET ME ASK HERM! HERM, WHY DO YOU HATE TRIANGLES!? THAT’S ME! HERM JUST ASKED ME A QUESTION! AND I’M GOING TO ANSWER HERM! EXCEPT HERM FORGETS WHY HE HATES TRIANGLES SO MUCH! DAMN TRIANGLES! HATE ‘EM, BUT DON’T KNOW WHY! GOTTA THINK! WHY DO I HATE TRIANGLES!? WHY DO I HATE… uhh… umm…

Reilly: You hate triangles because you’re an idiot. That’s why!

Wolfley: HERM, I CAN’T BLAME YOU FOR HATING TRIANGLES. WHEN I WAS A FORMER FOOTBALL PLAYER, I BOUGHT A BOX OF TRIANGLES FROM THE STORE AND I RUBBED THEM ALL OVER MY MANHOOD, AND TWO DAYS LATER MY MANHOOD TURNED GREEN AND THEN VANISHED INTO THIN AIR. I STILL DON’T KNOW WHERE IT IS.

Millen: That’s one of the worst things I’ve ever heard, Wolfley. I will make sure not to buy triangles in the store from now on. Of course, you do realize what this means, right? I won’t be able to insert kielbasas into your backside because you are now Zero-Percent USDA Man.

Tollefson: That just gave me a great idea. I’m going to buy triangles at the store and give them to every man I know. I’ll tell them to rub the triangles all over their manhood and then their manhood will disappear. Thus, I’ll be the only man left on this planet with a manhood, so all of the women will want to come and cook and clean naked for me!

Millen: You monster! I’ll kill you if you attempt to make all men Zero-Percent USDA Men! I won’t let it happen! I’ll strangle you in your sleep if I see you purchase a single triangle in the store!

Reilly: What the hell are you idiots talking about? You can’t just buy triangles at the store. They’re just shapes.

Fouts: And here’s what he means by triangles. Triangles are shapes sometimes. Not all the time. I would say triangles are shapes 95 percent of the time. They are spaceships 4 percent of the time and marine animals 1 percent of the time. The ones that are shapes have three sides. This is not to be confused with a square, which has four sides. Four sides is more than three sides, but that does not mean a square is better than a triangle. It’s also less than five sides, which is a pentagon. And the Pentagon is a place here in Washington D.C. where a lot of important people meet and discuss how to improve pizza. Pizza is also a triangle; I forgot about that, so let’s redo our calculations. Triangles are 91 percent of the time, they are pizza 4 percent of the time, they are spaceships 3 percent of the time and 1 percent of the time they are marine animals. That equals to 99 percent, so I must have screwed up somewhere.

Charles Davis: And Kevin, while Dan is trying to figure that out, Kevin, let’s discuss some more shapes, shall we, Kevin? OK, Kevin, time to discuss the other three-sided shape, Kevin. Trick question, Kevin! Triangle is the only one, Kevin! Let’s move on to four-sided shapes, Kevin. The square was already mentioned, Kevin. But the rectangle wasn’t, Kevin. Just kidding, Kevin. It was mentioned, Kevin. Just seeing if you were paying attention, Kevin. Let’s move on to parallelogram, Kevin. Let’s discuss the rhombus, Kevin. How about a circle, Kevin? That doesn’t have four sides, Kevin, but that’s because it’s a circle, Kevin. Let’s do a pop quiz, Kevin. There’s a shape with eight sides, Kevin. What shape am I thinking of, Kevin? Is it A) the polar bear from Lost, Kevin? B) octagon, Kevin? C) Russell Wilson, Kevin? Oh, you think it’s the polar bear from Lost, Kevin? Close but no cigar, Kevin! It’s octagon, Kevin!

Reilly: I KNEW THAT AND I NEVER GUESSED THE POLAR BEAR YOU A**WIPE I’M GOING TO KILL YOU AND FEED YOU TO THE DOGS AND THEN WOLFLEY WILL PEE ON IT WITH HIS IMAGINARY PENIS HAHAHAHA! We’ll be back right after this!

GREEN BAY OFFENSE: By now, everyone knows about the Packers’ offensive woes. Aaron Rodgers clearly isn’t himself; the receivers can’t separate; and the offensive line can’t block whatsoever, thanks to the players on the front being either sidelined or banged up.

The Packers’ poor offensive line has to be music to Washington’s ears, as its pass rush has been incredible lately. Though the Redskins finished with just the 14th-most sacks in the NFL (38), they’ve accumulated a whopping 17 in the past four weeks alone. They’ve done a terrific job of putting heat on opposing passers lately, which will obviously hinder Green Bay’s flat scoring unit.

It’s not all grim for Green Bay, however. There are two reasons why its fans should feel optimistic concerning this side of the ball for this matchup. First of all, the Redskins have one of the worst run defenses in the NFL. They’re ranked 30th in that regard, and they’ve been especially brutal lately, surrendering 5.40 YPC over the past month. Eddie Lacy and James Starks have been inconsistent, but they’ve shown the ability to run well against weaker opponents like the Raiders, for example. Second, the Redskins have some major holes in their secondary. Their defensive backfield won’t exactly be able to smother Rodgers’ “weapons,” so when Rodgers has time, he should be able to advance the chains on occasion.

WASHINGTON OFFENSE: This has been a strange season. If you were to tell anyone at the beginning of the year that Kirk Cousins would post better numbers than Aaron Rodgers, and that the latter would play all 16 games, you would’ve been escorted into a mental hospital and never been heard from again. Cousins has been terrific. A cupcake schedule has helped – I’ll get to that later – but he deserves credit nonetheless.

Having said that, I think Cousins could have some issues moving the chains in this contest. The Packers have one of the top pass rushes in the NFL, ranking sixth with 43 sacks. I don’t trust Washington’s offensive line, especially with Trent Williams banged up. Meanwhile, Green Bay has a pretty stout secondary that should be able to limit DeSean Jackson and the other mediocre Redskin receivers. I don’t see the Packers having much success against Jordan Reed, however.

The Redskins should be able to score, however, as they have a big advantage in the running game. They’ve been able to rush the ball well with Alfred Morris and Matt Jones at times, and that could be the case here, as the Packers have been putrid against ground attacks in the past month, surrendering 5.92 YPC to the opposition.

RECAP: Of all the spreads for this weekend’s games, this is the one that makes the most sense. I have the Redskins slotted as one-point favorites, and that’s exactly what they are.

I went with the home teams in the first three contests, but I’m leaning toward the visitor in this game. The public disagrees, as casual bettors are wagering on the Redskins because they’re perceived to be the better team. Perhaps they are, but I’m not convinced. As I mentioned earlier, Washington has enjoyed an extremely easy schedule. Let’s look at whom it has played since Thanksgiving weekend: Giants (solid victory), Cowboys (lost at home!), Bears (Chicago averaged 1.1 more yards per play), Bills (Buffalo didn’t appear to try very hard), Eagles (who quit because they hated Chip Kelly) and Cowboys (with Kellen Moore).

That’s not exactly the most impressive slate ever, and I began with Thanksgiving weekend because Week 11 saw the Panthers absolutely wreck the Redskins, 44-16. Carolina is that last good team Washington has battled.

Is Green Bay a good team? I’m not so sure. Save for the Bears, whom they outgained by 75 yards, the Packers have lost to strong opponents. The Vikings and Cardinals, who handed the Packers their most-recent defeats, are two of the top seven teams in the NFL. Before that, Green Bay took care of business versus Oakland and Dallas.

The Packers aren’t going to advance deep into the playoffs unless their offensive line suddenly gets healthy and their receivers find a way to get open. However, I think they can at least win one postseason contest, thanks to being matched up against a slightly above-average team that reached the playoffs only by default.

WEDNESDAY THOUGHTS: The Packers are now one-point favorites. This is artificial movement and doesn’t mean anything. The sharps will tip their hand Saturday or Sunday.

SUNDAY NOTES: I’ll have final thoughts close to kickoff. For now, I’ll say that I’m considering a second unit on the Packers. Green Bay got tripped up against two top-seven teams at the end of the year, but they beat the teams of Washington’s caliber before that, so I think the reports of their demise is greatly exaggerated.

FINAL THOUGHTS: I sincerely considered placing a second unit on the Packers, but David Bakhtiari being out is a concern. I still like Green Bay, as this is a great opportunity to buy low on them and to sell high on the overrated Redskins. However, Green Bay’s offensive line is a mess, and it sounds like Rodgers is legitimately hurt. I’m sticking with my initial read, which is one unit on the Packers. There’s no sharp action on this game, by the way. They loved the Vikings earlier, but it looks like they’re sitting this one out.

The Psychology. Edge: None.
No edge found.

The Vegas. Edge: None.
Almost equal action overall, but the public is all over the Redskins.

Percentage of money on Green Bay: 55% (74,000 bets)

The Trends. Edge: Packers.

Aaron Rodgers is 67-42 ATS since 2009 (9-6 ATS as a favorite of 12+).

Aaron Rodgers is 28-21 ATS on the road as long as he’s not favored by 6.5 or more points.

Aaron Rodgers is 20-8 ATS after a loss (just 9-5 ATS as a favorite of 7.5+).

Aaron Rodgers is 11-11 ATS as an underdog. ???

Redskins are 11-25 ATS after a road win since 2000.

Opening Line: Pick.

Opening Total: 46.5.

Weather: .

Week 18 NFL Pick: Packers 23, Redskins 20
Packers +1 (1 Unit) — Correct; +$100
Under 47 (0 Units) — Incorrect; $0

Week 18 NFL Picks – Saturday Games
Chiefs at Texans, Steelers at Bengals

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.

Props to be posted here

NFL Picks - Nov. 22

2025 NFL Mock Draft - Nov. 20

NFL Power Rankings - Nov. 19

Fantasy Football Rankings - Sept. 4

SUB MENU

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 12, 2024): 11-3 (+$2,020)
Last Week's 2-3 Unit NFL Picks (Week 12, 2024): 3-1 (+$580)
Last Week's 4-5 Unit NFL Picks (Week 12, 2024): 3-0 (+$1,400)
Last Week Over-Under (Week 12, 2024): 6-8 ($0)
Last Week's Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks (Week 12, 2024): +$905

2024 NFL Picks of the Month: 1-3, 25.0% (-$1,365)

2024 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 89-82-6, 52.0% (-$2,545)
2024 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 22-26-1, 45.8% (-$600)
2024 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 18-17, 51.4% (-$155)
2024 Season Over-Under: 82-82-2, 50.0% (+$95)
2024 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$740

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)
2020 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 138-124-7, 52.7% (+$9,350)
2021 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 153-141-2, 51.9% (+$210)
2022 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 154-134-8, 53.5% (+$9,860)
2023 Season NFL Picks Against The Spread: 144-141-7, 50.5% (-$7,285)

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)
2020 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 47-43-3, 52.2% (-$1,965)
2021 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 50-50, 50.0% (-$1,570)
2022 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 56-44-2, 56.0% (+$1,860)
2023 Season 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 44-40-3, 52.4% (+$285)

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)
2020 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 37-22-1, 62.7% (+$5,515)
2021 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 32-32-1, 50.0% (-$725)
2022 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 41-30-1, 57.8% (+$3,725)
2023 Season 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 32-27-1, 54.2% (-$1,310)

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)
2020 Season Over-Under: 141-122-6, 53.6% ($0)
2021 Season Over-Under: 132-151-3, 46.6% ($0)
2022 Season Over-Under: 133-149-2, 47.2% (-$225)
2023 Season Over-Under: 145-135-3, 51.8% (+$200)

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
2020 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$4,975
2021 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$3,455
2022 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: +$5,720
2023 Season Prop/ML/Teaser/Parlay Picks: -$2,565

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)
2020 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-2, 60.0% (+$665)
2021 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-3, 40.0% (-$920)
2022 NFL Picks of the Month: 3-4, 42.9% (-$1,615)
2023 NFL Picks of the Month: 2-5, 28.6% (-$2,550)

Career NFL Picks Against The Spread: 3,510-3,234-202, 52.0% (+$19,125)
Career 2-3 Unit NFL Picks: 1,129-1,011-57 (52.8%)
Career 4-5 Unit NFL Picks: 571-502-25 (53.2%)
Career Over-Under: 2,941-2,916-76 (50.2%)
Career Second-Half NFL Picks: 23-16-1 (59.0%)
Career NFL Picks of the Month: 47-37-1 (56.0%)

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: 6-3	Bears: 5-5	Bucs: 6-4	49ers: 6-4
Eagles: 5-5	Lions: 9-1	Falcons: 6-5	Cardinals: 8-2
Giants: 3-6	Packers: 6-3	Panthers: 4-6	Rams: 5-5
Redskins: 5-5	Vikings: 4-6	Saints: 5-6	Seahawks: 6-3

Bills: 4-7	Bengals: 2-9	Colts: 6-5	Broncos: 7-4
Dolphins: 4-6	Browns: 3-7	Jaguars: 3-7	Chargers: 6-3
Jets: 6-5	Ravens: 5-5	Texans: 5-6	Chiefs: 4-5
Patriots: 6-3	Steelers: 4-6	Titans: 6-3	Raiders: 5-5

Divisional: 21-23 (2011-23: 608-561)	2x Game Edge: 18-14 (2011-23: 401-387)	2x Motivation Edge: 31-25 (2011-23: 510-441)	2x Spread Edge: 21-30 (2011-23: 239-211)
2x Vegas Edge: 33-47 (2011-23: 448-446)	2x Trend Edge: 12-8 (2011-23: 321-293)	Double Edge: 13-16 (2011-23: 207-185)	Triple Edge: 4-8 (2011-23: 33-37)