2012 NFL Picks

Tennessee Titans at Buffalo Bills: Week 7 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks, Bills, Titans

Tennessee Titans (2-4) at Buffalo Bills (3-3)

These two teams are actually very, very similar. Tennessee ranks 29th in yards per play differential and Buffalo ranks 30th. Buffalo also ranks 30th in rate of sustaining drives differential, while Tennessee ranks 31st. I picked both teams for big plays last week because, in addition to other reasons, both teams were coming off back to back losses of 21 or more. Teams in that situation are 33-16 ATS since 2002 and are now 35-16 ATS after both pulled off upset victories last week.

However, both teams are now in bad spots because of how they won last week. Both teams won by a field goal late. Tennessee won at home by a field goal as dogs. Teams are 28-50 ATS in that spot since 2002. Buffalo won in overtime on the road as dogs. Teams are 16-31 ATS the following week as favorites since 2002 as Buffalo is indeed favored in this one.

So if these two teams are so similar, why do I like Tennessee? Well, there are 6 reasons. For one, Tennessee is better rested. Teams are 112-92 ATS off Thursday Night Football, which isn’t huge or anything, but it’s notable and it definitely makes sense. A bigger trend is that underdogs before being favorites are 81-43 ATS since the start of last year, including 13-5 ATS off a win as dogs. If you go back to 2008 to get a larger sample size, teams are 38-19 ATS as dogs before being favorites off a win as dogs.

The 3rd reason is that, while these two teams match up similarly statistically, look who these two teams have played. Buffalo has played the Jets, Chiefs, Browns, Patriots, 49ers, and Cardinals, while Tennessee has had to deal with the Patriots, Chargers, Lions, Texans, Vikings, and most recently the Steelers, a much tougher schedule. The 4th reason is that we do have a substantial public lean on Buffalo right now and I love to fade the public, especially on substantial leans. The 5th reason is that teams coming off a victory off of two straight losses by 21 or more, like both of these teams are, are 15-9 ATS as dogs, but 3-5 ATS as favorites the following week.

The final reason is that, we’ll these teams are even, we’re getting a half point more with Buffalo than we should. I know that may sound insignificant, but since 2002, 15.5% of all NFL teams have been decided by a field goal or more. At some places, this line is +3 (+105) and some it’s -3.5 (-120). I recommend paying for the extra half point if you can. It’s valuable and you’ll probably need it with two teams as evenly matched as these. The money line is a good value too.

Public lean: Buffalo (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Tennessee covers)

Sharps lean: TEN 12 BUF 9

Final update: No change

Tennessee Titans 24 Buffalo Bills 23 Upset Pick +165

Pick against spread: Tennessee +3.5 (-120) 2 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

New York Jets at New England Patriots: Week 7 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks, Jets, Patriots

New York Jets (3-3) at New England Patriots (3-3)

You gotta love the public overreaction with the Patriots. Last week, they were one of the best teams in the league. Now you get guys like Tony Dungy saying they’re “not very good” and an “average team” just because they lost by 1 point to a good Seattle team in Seattle. The Seahawks are awesome at home, going 15-4 ATS as home dogs since 2007 and now they might have their most talented team in that time period. There’s not really any shame losing to them there.

That loss did drop the Patriots to 12-10 in games where they take a lead of 10 or fewer into the 4th quarter, dating back to their loss to the Colts in the 2006 AFC Championship game, which is obviously concerning since the average team wins 70% of those games. However, they are 7-6 in games where they trail by 10 or fewer going into the 4th. It’s very possible that their struggles when entering the 4th with a slim lead are caused by play calling and a lack of urgency, not that they’ve lost their clutch edge. Overall, going 19-16 in games where the score is within 10 heading into the 4th quarter isn’t so bad.

They probably won’t have to worry about that this week, as is often the case. In their last 79 games, they’ve had a lead of more than 10 heading into the 4th quarter a whopping 41 times, winning them all, and this feels like another one of those games. They’ve had to listen to how “average” they are all week and how they’ve “lost it” when in actuality, they just lost to a good team that’s very good at home by 1 point. They’ve lost 3 games by a combined 4 points this year. This is still a really good team.

They’re in a very good spot this week. Tom Brady is 16-6 ATS off a loss as a favorite in his career and 26-12 ATS in general off a loss. As a result of their “surprising” loss last week, we’re actually getting the Patriots much cheaper than we would have last week as this week was -13 last week and it’s now -10.5 and not only that, but there’s equal action on both sides by the public. We’re not getting line value with this team if we use the traditional yards per play differential method as that produces a “real” line of New England -5, but there are some issues with that traditional method.

The most important one is that it underrates teams like the Patriots who don’t have a lot of big plays and allow a lot of big plays, but also that are very tough to get off the field and are good at getting their opponents’ off the field. That’s why I created a stat known as rate of sustaining drives, which essentially is the rate of total 1st and 10s to first downs, essentially, on any given set of downs, how often does a team get another one (or score). The Patriots do that on 85.5% of their sets of downs, while their opponents do it on just 72.4%, giving them a league leading differential of 13.1% in that category.

The Jets, meanwhile, rank 27th with a differential of -7.4%. If you take the difference of those two numbers and divide by 1.5 and add 3 for home field advantage, using this method, you get a line of New England -16.5. I’m not saying this is a better method than the traditional one or that’s it’s perfect, but it can be used to find teams that the traditional method under or overrates. At New England -10, we don’t seem to be getting any real line value either way. If there is any either way, it’s in favor of New England because -5 and -16.5 average out to be about -11.5.

Meanwhile, while the Patriots are underrated and in a good spot off of last week’s game, the Jets are in the opposite situation. Dogs of 10+ are 4-7 ATS off a wins of 21+ since 1989. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it seems to be for a good reason, which is that the win the week before appears to be a fluke and typically that ends up being an accurate assessment.

The Jets were able to win last week because they were able to run the ball effectively, play solid defense, and win the turnover battle, three things I think they’ll be unable to do this week. Before last week, they weren’t able to run nearly as well as they did against a banged up Colts defense. The 252 yards they rushed for last week account for 38% of the rushing yards they’ve had all season and they still rank 23rd in the league in yards per carry. Besides, the Patriots rank 4th in the league, allowing 3.4 YPC on the ground. Even Seattle, normally a run heavy team, didn’t really even try to run the ball on them last week and they weren’t effective when they attempted it.

The Patriots also 1st in the league in points per game so the Jets’ chances of stopping them are pretty slim and thus their ability to run a conservative game plan like last week (44 runs to 19 passes) is pretty limited, bad news since that’s how their team is most efficient. I also don’t think they’ll win the turnover battle like last week, when they won it 4 to 0. Not only are turnover differentials incredibly inconsistent on a week to week basis, they’re playing a Patriots team that is tied for the league lead at +10 and is one of the few teams to be able to consistently win the turnover battle on a week to week basis. Since Bill Belichick took over in 2000, they’ve won the turnover battle 121 times and lost it 67 times.

If the Jets are going to have any chance to win this game, it’ll be up to Mark Sanchez to exploit the Patriots’ weakness, their secondary, like Russell Wilson did last week. However, Sanchez couldn’t even exploit Indianapolis’ secondary last week, averaging 4.6 YPA against a team that is allowing 7.6 YPA on the season. He’s completing just 49.7% of his passes for 6.4 YPA and 8 touchdowns to 6 interceptions on the season, all worse than Russell Wilson, and this is a road game for him, not a home game like it was for Wilson.

The Patriots’ secondary should also be improved this week, not just because it’s a bounce back game at home, but because they will get back Patrick Chung, who left last week with an injury. Donta Hightower is also expected back this week after missing the last 2 games. His absence has forced Rob Ninkovich to play more linebacker, which has turned their 2nd best pass rusher from a pure defensive end to someone who only rushes the passer in obvious passing situations. I hate laying this many points with any team, but this one feels like a blowout for many reasons.

Public lean: New England (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if NY Jets covers)

Sharps lean: NE 12 NYJ 6

Final update: No change.

New England Patriots 34 New York Jets 13

Pick against spread: New England -10.5 (-110) 2 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

New Orleans Saints at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Week 7 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks, Buccaneers, Saints

New Orleans Saints (1-4) at Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2-3)

The Saints got their first win 2 weeks ago at home on Sunday Night Football over the Chargers, but their problems are far from solved. They still have a horrific defense, which is a contributing factor to them ranking 26th in the league in yards per play differential and 23rd in rate of sustained drives differential. Tampa Bay, meanwhile, actually ranks 22nd and 25th in those two statistics, which means they match up pretty evenly with the Saints. However, they are still home underdogs here.

I’d like to go into the Buccaneers’ two rankings in those. Before last week’s blowout win over the Chiefs, they ranked significantly lower in both of those categories. I hate putting too much stock into one game, but I do feel like where they were before last week wasn’t a great indicator of the type of team they were. After all, they were just 4 games into the season and I had this as an underrated team heading into the season. I picked against them last week because of how poor they were in those two categories and obviously now I really regret giving up on a preseason underrated team of mine.

Let me get into why I thought they were underrated. In 2010, everything went right for this team. They had an easy schedule and went 9-1 against sub .500 teams (1-5 against everyone else). They turned the ball over just 19 times and, after regressing 6 wins from 2008 to 2009, predictably bounced back. Teams that regress 6 wins win an average of 3.0 more games the following season. The Buccaneers did that and more, going from 3 to 10 wins.

However, in 2011, they predictably declined. Like teams that regress by a big win total, teams that improve by a big win total also tend to go the other direction in the following season. Teams that improve 7 games win an average of 4.5 fewer games the following season. The Buccaneers are very familiar with this principle, going from 9 wins in 2008 to 3 in 2009 to 10 in 2010.

It was easy to see how they’d do it. They turned the ball over less than 20 times in 2010, which is an unsustainable stat for a team without a true elite quarterback. There have been 36 teams since 2002 with 20 or fewer turnovers. In their next season, those teams, have had, on average, 9.64 more turnovers and won 2.69 fewer games. They also had a much tougher schedule and proved in 2010 that they couldn’t beat tough competition.

The Buccaneers ended up regressing more than 4.5 wins. They regressed 6 wins and turned the ball over a whopping 40 times, going 4-12 and losing their last 10 after quitting on Head Coach Raheem Morris. They went from playing 6 games against teams that were .500 or better to 11 and didn’t improve, going 2-9 in those 11 games.

There was definitely reason to be optimistic for the Buccaneers this season. Teams that regress 6 wins win an average of 3.0 more games the following season and teams that turn the ball over 35 times or more have averaged 9.74 fewer turnovers the next season and have won 1.61 more games. Raheem Morris is gone and is replaced with a much more disciplinarian Head Coach in Greg Schiano and the team finally spent money in the offseason. Though they overpaid each one of them, I had no doubt that the trio of Vincent Jackson, Carl Nicks, and Eric Wright, overall, will have a positive impact on this team in 2012, as would several rookies and the return of Gerald McCoy from injury.

I also expected the new coaching staff to bring discipline to a team that missed the most tackles of any team since they started keeping the stat in 2011. Remember, this team had the 9th ranked defense in the league in 2010, allowing 19.9 points per game. I didn’t expect them to be that good, but fewer missed tackles, additions, bounce back years, maturation of young players, an easier schedule, and fewer turnovers from the offense (which puts a ton of pressure on the defense) should have helped this defense be more middle of the pack and right now they rank 12th in points per game allowed.

I was wrong to give up on this preseason underrated team and for that reason, I don’t think it’s an overreaction to one game that I like this team once again. I don’t see how they are 5.5 points worse than the Saints on a neutral field (3 point for homefield advantage). Besides, the Saints struggle on the road even when they’re playing well, going 5-10 ATS as road favorites since 2010. They were road favorites in Tampa Bay last year and lost straight up as well, despite finished 13-3, so I don’t see why that can’t happen again this year. However, the public seems to see it differently as there’s a very heavy public lean on New Orleans. I love fading the public, especially on heavy leans.

This would be a bigger play, but I’m worried about New Orleans coming off a bye. Road favorites off a bye are 75-46 ATS since 2002, however just 34-25 ATS in the division, which isn’t as strong. Besides, I don’t even think the Saints deserve to be road favorites, considering how they’ve played this year and how they normally struggle on the road. I’m certainly not going to take the Saints as road favorites against a team I’m not sure they’re better than. Finally, the Buccaneers are 11-4 in the last 2 years against teams who finish worse than .500. This year, they’ve followed that trend, beating Kansas City and Carolina, but losing to Dallas, Washington, and the Giants. The Saints could easily end up under .500 this year.

Public lean: New Orleans (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Tampa Bay covers)

Sharps lean: NO 16 TB 10

Final update: Slight sharp lean on New Orleans, but Jimmy Graham has been ruled out for the Saints. I’m sticking with Tampa Bay for a small play.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 27 New Orleans Saints 24 Upset Pick +115

Pick against spread: Tampa Bay +2.5 (-110) 2 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Washington Redskins at New York Giants: Week 7 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks, Commanders, Giants

Washington Redskins (3-3) at New York Giants (4-2)

When I first saw this line, I instantly thought, trap line. The Giants were coming off a huge win in San Francisco and yet this line was suspiciously only at -7. My belief was furthered when the line started to actually fall even more and now it’s down to -5.5. The issue: this case was missing the critical element of a trap line, a heavy public lean on the side where the line action was moving away from. The public is actually pretty split here, even with the falling line.

It’s possible it’s just a trap line that’s not doing its job, which wouldn’t make it any less of a trap line, but that argument is hurt by that fact. Fortunately, that’s not the only reason why I like Washington this week. If it was, it’d probably be a small play. Instead, this is going to be a big play on the Redskins, for several reasons.

For one, the Giants are coming off a big upset win in San Francisco and are now dogs before being favorites as they head to Dallas next week. Favorites before and after being dogs are 79-112 ATS since 2008, though it’s worth noting they’re 25-34 ATS off a win as dogs, which isn’t as strong. However, going off of that, the Giants are divisional home favorites before being divisional road dogs. Teams are a ridiculous 14-46 ATS in that spot since 2002, meaning they cover just 23% of the time. Furthermore, it just makes sense that they would overlook Washington this week. They did that twice last year and are coming off a huge win with a big divisional revenge game on the schedule next.

Washington, meanwhile, is a little underrated. They do sit at 3-3, but all 3 of their losses have come by a touchdown or fewer and all 3 involved some sort of injury to a key player who is now healthy that could have easily changed the outcome of that game. Against St. Louis, they lost top cornerback Josh Wilson. Against Cincinnati, they lost top offensive lineman Trent Williams. Against Atlanta, they lost their starting quarterback Robert Griffin and saw his replacement throw 2 picks. All 3 of those teams are quality opponents as well.

Furthermore, we are getting some line value with Washington if we use the traditional yards per play differential metric, which gives us a “real” line of -2.5 in favor of the Giants. One issue I noticed with using solely this metric, which a lot of bettors do, is it puts too much value on teams that get a lot of big plays, but can’t sustain drives (or conversely, teams that don’t allow a lot of big plays, but can’t get off the field defensively).

Think about it. You pass for 30 yards and then gain no yards on your next 3 plays and have to punt. That’s 7.5 yards per play, which is incredibly impressive, but you didn’t sustain a drive. So I’ve essentially created a new statistic called, rate of sustaining drives, not to replace the traditional metric, but to see if any teams are much better in one than the other.

Basically, how I created it is I took first downs and divided it by first downs + turnovers + punts + failed 4thdowns. Basically, what it essentially measures is, on any given 1st and 10, how often does a team get another 1st down or sustain the drive. Turnovers (whether traditional or on downs) and punts are obviously failures to achieve 1st and 10. This measures first downs divided by chances at a first down (first downs + failures to achieve 1st and 10).

You can also do this for the defense, how often they can get the opposing team off the field on any given 1stand 10. The statistic is in the form of a percentage and you can subtract the offensive one from the defensive one to get the differential. For example, the Giants are at +11.8%, while Washington is at +1.4%. The difference between the percents is 10.4, divide by 1.5 this time (which conveniently works very well with the numbers) and add 3 points either way for home field and you get a line of NY Giants -10, so we’re not really getting line value with either side.

It’s definitely worth noting, however, that the Giants do rank 30th against the pass and are likely to be without 2 starting defensive backs, so while Washington doesn’t have a good defense, they should be able to keep this one close in a shootout. They haven’t been blown out yet so even if they lose, there’s a good chance they keep it within the spread. If we were getting a real chance to fade the public or some real line value here, it’d be a 5 unit pick, but I’m making this a 4 unit co-pick of the week. That 14-46 ATS trend is very, very hard to ignore.

Public lean: Washington (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if NY Giants covers)

Sharps lean: WAS 18 NYG 7

Final update: Sharps love the Redskins. Feeling good about this one even though there is now a very slight public lean on Washington.

Washington Redskins 31 New York Giants 27 Upset Pick +210

Pick against spread: Washington +5.5 (-110) 4 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Seattle Seahawks at San Francisco 49ers: Week 7 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks, 49ers, Seahawks

Seattle Seahawks (4-2) at San Francisco 49ers (4-2)

On Thursday Night, the rule of thumb is to always take a home favorite. It makes sense. Favorites tend to be proven, veteran teams, or at least in comparison to the road team. Meanwhile, the road team has to travel on a short week, which is an obvious disadvantage, especially for a less proven, less veteran team. Road favorites cover at about a 50% clip because the advantage of being a proven, veteran team on a short week normally cancels out the disadvantage of being a road team on a short week.

This week we have a home favorite and the 49ers are the more, proven veteran team here, even just a year and a half into the Jim Harbaugh era. Home favorites are 45-24 ATS on Thursday Night since 1989, including 18-9 ATS as favorites of a touchdown or more. The issue is that both of these trends seem to cancel out when it’s a divisional game. We saw it when Cleveland went to Baltimore (but not when Chicago went to Green Bay). Home divisional favorites are just 17-15 ATS on Thursday Night in the division, including just 8-8 ATS as a favorite of 7 or more. However, because this is an NFC West game, I don’t think that will be as big of a factor.

A rule of thumb in NFC West games is to always pick the home team. NFC West home teams are 38-23 ATS in a divisional game since 2007. Even the 49ers, as good as they were last year, were just 1-2 ATS on the road. This makes sense. NFC West teams tend to be better home teams than road teams in general. In that same time period, no division is better in general at home than the NFC West, which is 103-73 ATS at home.

Even though NFC West games also tend to be lower scoring, home favorites of a touchdown or more also have no problem covering within the division, going 12-3 ATS since 2007. NFC West divisional games also tend to go under the total as the under is 38-23 in divisional games in that same time period. Thursday Night games tend to go under more often than not anyway as the under is 69-51 on Thursday Nights since 1989. When one team is favored by a touchdown or more, it goes under even more frequently, 28-13, so I’m once again putting 1 unit on the under on Thursday night.

It helps San Francisco’s case to cover that their opponent is the Seahawks. They’re the perfect example of this division, great at home, poor on the road. Since 2007, they are 15-29 ATS on the road, 30-14 ATS at home. As road dogs of more than a touchdown, they’re 4-12 ATS. I’ve correctly predicted 5 of their 6 games this year, all for big plays, using pretty much solely that fact, including hits on 3 money line plays as home dogs to Dallas, Green Bay, and New England.

Speaking of that win over New England last week, because it was so “surprising,” it makes them a little overrated right now. Really, that win was not surprising at all, if you know anything about what type of team they are at home, especially as dogs of 3 or more. In those situations, they’re 15-4 ATS since 2007. They’re not a better team than New England. Not only is that win causing them to be slightly overrated right now, it also puts them in a bad spot this week. Road dogs of 7+ are 22-42 ATS off of a home win as dogs. Furthermore, teams are 7-14 ATS on Thursday Night off a win as home dogs, 3-9 ATS off a win as home dogs of 3+.

San Francisco, meanwhile, is in a good spot coming off an upset loss to the New York Giants, although not as good of a spot as the Seahawks’ spot is bad. There’s no real trend that says teams bounce back off of losses, but good, well coached teams always seem to do so. Bill Belichick is 35-19 ATS in that spot since 2000. Mike McCarthy is 21-13 ATS in that spot since 2006. Mike Tomlin is 16-10 ATS in that spot since 2007. Sean Payton is 20-12 ATS in that spot since 2006. Of the current NFL Head Coaches who have won a Super Bowl with their current team, only Tom Coughlin (26-23 ATS) doesn’t have a very impressive ATS record off a loss.

Jim Harbaugh doesn’t have a Super Bowl ring yet, but everything he’s done so far suggests he’ll be in that group someday. He’s already got a fairly impressive resume off a loss, going 5-0 ATS and 5-0 SU. Those 5 straight up wins came by an average of 19.2 points per game. Looking forward to the future, the 49ers are also in a nice spot as home divisional favorites before being road divisional favorites (they go to Arizona next week). Teams are 109-81 ATS in that spot since 1989.

Finally, we’re getting line value with the 49ers. People who read this frequently know I love to go on and on about yards per play differential. Well, I have another metric that I think works well with yards per play differential, which I’ll go to in a second. First, the 49ers still rank 1st in the league in yards per play differential. If you take the difference between Seattle’s yards per play differential (not too shabby at 12th) and San Francisco’s, divide by .15 and add 3 points to San Francisco’s side for home field advantage, you get a line of 11.5, which suggests 4.5 points of line value with the 49ers.

One issue I noticed with using solely this metric, which a lot of bettors do, is it puts too much value on teams that get a lot of big plays, but can’t sustain drives (or conversely, teams that don’t allow a lot of big plays, but can’t get off the field defensively). Think about it. You pass for 30 yards and then gain no yards on your next 3 plays and have to punt. That’s 7.5 yards per play, which is incredibly impressive, but you didn’t sustain a drive. So I’ve essentially created a new statistic called, rate of sustaining drives, not to replace the traditional metric, but to see if any teams are much better in one than the other.

Basically, how I created it is I took first downs and divided it by first downs + turnovers + punts + failed 4th downs. Basically, what it essentially measures is, on any given 1st and 10, how often does a team get another 1st down or sustain the drive. Turnovers (whether traditional or on downs) and punts are obviously failures to achieve 1st and 10. This measures first downs divided by chances at a first down (first downs + failures to achieve 1st and 10).

You can also do this for the defense, how often they can get the opposing team off the field on any given 1st and 10. The statistic is in the form of a percentage and you can subtract the offensive one from the defensive one to get the differential. For example, San Francisco is at +9.9%, while Seattle is at -0.1%. The difference between the percents is 10, divide by 1.5 this time (which conveniently works very well with the numbers) and add 3 points either way for home field and you get a line of San Francisco -10. It’s not exactly the same as the yards per play differential true line result, but it’s similar enough that it confirms we are getting line value with the 49ers.

I rarely take favorites for big plays, but that’s what I’m going to do here, even though there is a slight public lean on San Francisco. Everything I can find, every trend, every metric for determining true line suggests that the 49ers should cover here and win with ease. It’s not a 5 unit pick of the week, but it’s 4 units as long as I can get it at -7. If I decide not to do a 5 unit pick of the week (I have a good one in mind), this will be a co-pick of the week. For the record, I am 8-2 on picks I call pick of the week or co-pick of the week. I’m also putting one unit on the under.

Public lean: San Francisco (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Seattle covers)

San Francisco 49ers 23 Seattle Seahawks 10

Pick against spread: San Francisco -7 (-110) 4 units

Over/under: Under 37 (-110) 1 unit

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Week 6 NFL Picks Results

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 7 NFL Picks

Week 5 Results

ATS: 5-9 -5 units/-$690

SU: 8-6

Upset Picks: 5-2 +$860

Over/Under: 0-1 -$110

Total: +$60

Public Results ATS*: 6-8 -10 units

2012 results to date

ATS: 40-34-3 +13 units/+$215

SU: 54-37

Upset Picks: 18-17 +$1285

Over/Under: 3-1-1 +190

Total: +1690

Survivor: 4-2 (HOU, NE, NO, BAL, SF, ATL)

Public Results ATS*: 40-50-1 -35 units

*I’m doing this to see how the general public does. Based on percent of bets on each team, if the more popularly bet team covers, it’s a public win, if not, it’s a public loss. If a team that has 50-59% of the action on it covers, the public gets “one unit,” if they don’t cover, they lose one unit, 60-69% is 2, 70-79% is 3, etc.

Minnesota Vikings at Washington Redskins: Week 6 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 6 NFL Picks, Commanders, Vikings

Minnesota Vikings (4-1) at Washington Redskins (2-3)

There’s still no line posted for this for some reason, even though Robert Griffin is widely expected to play, but I’m going to do this write up anyway. Last week, the line was Washington -2 for this game, so I’d be surprised if we got anything lower than Washington -1 or PK. Given that Minnesota is probably going to be a dog in this one, I’m probably going to make a big play on Minnesota.

Washington, assuming they are favored here, are favorites after losing as dogs and before being dogs (they go to New York to play the Giants next week). Teams are 53-77 ATS in that spot since 2008. Minnesota, meanwhile, is dogs before being favorites (they host Arizona next week). Teams are 75-44 ATS in that spot since 2011.

We’re also getting line value with the Vikings. The difference between these two teams’ yards per play differentials is .9. If you divide that by .15, you get 6 and add 3 points for home field advantage, you get a “real” line of -3, meaning we’re getting at least 3 points of line value with the Vikings. In fact, I think the Vikings are still underrated.

Unlike surprise teams like St. Louis and Arizona, Minnesota is absolutely for real. They are 5th in the league in yards per play differential. Last year, in the 9 games in which Ponder led the team in passing attempts, the team scored 22.9 points per game. Despite their 3-13 record, they had a Pythagorean Expectation of 6 wins, despite injuries to several key players.

Now Ponder is healthy and improved, behind a better offensive line. The coaching staff is finally using Percy Harvin properly and he’s emerged as one of the better receivers in the league. Meanwhile, their defense is much improved thanks to the return of Antoine Winfield and Chris Cook, as well as young players playing better. After ranking 20th in the league in yards per play allowed last year, their young defense has broken out and now ranks 2nd. They’re for real and this might be one of the last chances we get to get them cheap and with line value.

As long as Washington is favored or this is a pick, this is going to be a significant play on Minnesota. If Minnesota is favored, it’ll be a smaller pick and maybe even a 1 unit pick. For some reason, this line is Minnesota -2.5 in Las Vegas Hilton, which is why the Sharps Lean 12 to 5 in favor of Minnesota, but that would be a 4.5 line movement from last week and I don’t see that happening, especially since Atlanta was just -3 last week. Stay tuned for a final pick. I hope we get an actual line soon.

Public lean: ?

Sharp lean: WAS 12 MIN 5

Final update: This line finally was posted late Saturday Night at even. Unfortunately, there’s no way of knowing the public lean on such short notice, so I can’t fade the public, but I still feel confident in Minnesota, even though it will be for only 2 units instead of 3 because we’ve lost line value. This spread moved 2 points from last week.

Minnesota Vikings 24 Washington Redskins 20

Pick against spread: Minnesota PK (-110) 2 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Green Bay Packers at Houston Texans: Week 6 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 6 NFL Picks, Packers, Texans

Green Bay Packers (2-3) at Houston Texans (5-0)

I feel pretty much exactly the same way about this one as I did about San Francisco/NY Giants. With the favorite, we are getting line value and the opportunity to fade a public underdog. However, with the dog, we’re getting a team that normally does well in this situation. The difference between these two teams’ yards per play differential is .7. Divide that by .15 and add 3 points for home field advantage and you get a “real” line of Houston -7.5, meaning we’re getting 4 points of line value with the hosts. In spite of that, Green Bay is a public dog because no one believes they’re as bad as their record. As much as I love betting against the public, I especially love betting against public dogs.

I want to talk about the Packers and their surprising 2-3 record. I don’t think they are as bad as their record would suggest. They’ve had bad luck between the replacement officials and the ChuckStrong train. They could be 4-1 right now. I also don’t think they’re as good as the public thinks and nearly as good as they’ve been over the past couple of years. Their major issues are offensively. Their offensive line is a mess. They can’t run the ball and Aaron Rodgers really does seem to miss Greg Jennings, who is out once again for this one. Without the offense they had last year, their defense, which actually has held up alright this year, needs to be relied on more and it’s still not an elite unit capable of that.

However, as I mentioned, we’re getting some good spots with the Packers. Aaron Rodgers is 10-5 ATS in his career as an underdog, including 4-1 ATS as a dog of 3+. He’s 13-9 ATS off a loss, but if you don’t including 2008, his first year as a starter, he’s 9-4 ATS. He’s also 3-0 ATS in his career as a dog off a loss as a favorite. If you include 2006 and 2007, the Packers’ first two years under Mike McCarthy, they are 5-0 ATS in that situation. Meanwhile, teams are 75-44 ATS as dogs before being favorites and the Packers go to St. Louis next week. I also worry about the impact of the loss of Brian Cushing on the Texans’ defense.

This one is actually tougher for me to pick than San Francisco/NY Giants because we aren’t getting as much line value with the hosts, but we’re also getting fewer points with the road team. There’s less of a chance for a cover if the Packers lose. If I did zero unit picks, this would be one, but I’m once again going with the hosts, like I did in San Francisco/NY Giants, for similar reasons. The combination of betting against a public dog and getting significant line value is too much.

The Packers will give this game everything, but so will the Texans, who won’t be sleewalking 2 weeks in a row. In fact, they were probably sleepwalking last week because they were more focused on this benchmark game than the Jets. Teams are 7-14 ATS before playing the Packers since their Super Bowl victory. Finally, I really believe the Packers will be this year’s team that goes from a 1st round bye to out of the playoffs. There’s one every year and it’s hard to believe right now that San Francisco, Baltimore, or New England could be that team. A loss here, dropping them to 2-4 in a loaded NFC, would go a long way towards that end result.

Public lean: Green Bay (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Houston covers)

Sharp lean (15-9 or better in LV Hilton): GB 21 HOU 6

Final update: Sharps like Green Bay, but I’m still not sure.

Houston Texans 24 Green Bay Packers 20

Pick against spread: Houston -3.5 (-110) 1 unit

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Detroit Lions at Philadelphia Eagles: Week 6 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 6 NFL Picks, Eagles, Lions

Detroit Lions (1-3) at Philadelphia Eagles (3-2)

The Detroit Lions sit at 1-3 and have yet to cover a spread. As someone who called them overrated to start the season and subsequently went against them in each of their first 4 games, I’m pretty happy about that. However, right now I think they might be a little bit underrated. They’ve had a lot of injury issues in the first few games and now with Louis Delmas expected to return, they should have their whole defense back, though you can argue that doesn’t matter a ton because they allowed the 10th most points per game in 2011. In 2012, however, they are allowing the 7th most.

In spite of that and their 1-3 record, they do rank 13th in the league in yards per play differential, including 16th in yards per play allowed. How are they 16th in yards per play allowed, but 26th in points per game allowed? Well, there are some factors. One is that one of their games went to overtime, though if you take out points allowed in overtime, they’re still allowing 27.7 points per game (a .75 point per game improvement), which would rank 25th.

Another major issue they’re having is special teams. They allowed 4 kickoff or punt return touchdowns, which is responsible for 7 points per game. Take those out of the picture and they’re actually allowing 20.7 points per game in regulation which would rank 12th in the NFL. Of course, that’s assuming that their opponents would not have scored at all on any of their drives after the kickoff or punt, which is incorrect.

We also need to look at their per drive defensive statistics. Including extra points, the Lions are allowing about 2.1 points per drive this season, so really, those 4 return touchdowns allowed have cost them a total of 19.6 total points or 4.9 points per game. Still, if you take those out of the picture, they are allowing 22.8 points per game in regulation, which would be 18th. However, they’ve also allowed 2 touchdowns on a pick six and a fumble recovery touchdown, which, using the same method as above, allows an extra 2.4 points per game, which leaves their defense responsible for 20.4 points per game, which would be tied for 11th. This is all very “crude” math. Other things are at play like field position, but you get the idea. Their defense hasn’t been nearly as bad as the points per game would suggest.

Now the question is, will they continue to allow so many non-defensive touchdowns? Well the two touchdowns off of turnovers have gone on just 6 giveaways. That’s one per every 3 turnovers. Average is one per every 12 turnovers and the numbers suggest it’s more luck than skill if your opponent returns a takeaway for 6, depending on things like where on the field the turnover takes place and how many players (on each side) are in the area.

But how about their special teams issues? Well, it’s really tough to say that’s not skill, but it’s probably not as hard of a fix as say fixing a bad pass rush or something. Plus, let’s say they continue to be horrific on special teams and break the NFL record for both kickoff return touchdowns allowed and punt return touchdowns allowed. Did you know how many that would be? 5. Yes, if they allowed 3 kickoff returns for touchdown and 3 punt returns for touchdown the rest of the way, they will hold both records.

Even if they did that, that would still be just .5 special teams touchdowns allowed per game, an improvement of .5 special teams touchdowns allowed per game over their first 4 games, meaning they can be the worst special teams team ever and still see a 100% improvement in that area going forward. If they simply tie both records of futility, that would be .33 special teams touchdowns allowed per game going forward, a 200% improvement.

So all things the same, they should see a noticeable improvement in points per game allowed going forward. However, all things aren’t really the same. They’ve faced a pretty easy slate of opposing offenses so far, St. Louis, San Francisco, Tennessee, and Minnesota. In fact, Philadelphia this week might be the toughest offense they’ve faced so far. I think we should expect them to allow somewhere around the 24.2 points per game they allowed last year. They’re still not a good defensive team.

Meanwhile, while they haven’t faced tough offenses, they have faced some tough defenses. With the exception of Tennessee, who really isn’t doing anything right, everyone they’ve faced this year is playing tough defense. Their offense is just 13th in the league in yards per play. Unfortunately for them this week, Philadelphia ranks 7th in opponent’s yards per play (San Francisco is 3rd, Minnesota is 2nd, and St. Louis is 11th), so they have another tough test, but going forward, we should see an offensive improvement.

And that takes me to another underrated team, the Philadelphia Eagles. They’re another team whose yards per play differential is much better than their record and points differential as they rank 8th in this category. The reason for that takes a much shorter explanation than Detroit’s. The issue is, unsurprisingly to anyone following the league this year, their turnover differential. They rank tied for last in the NFC with a turnover differential of -7.

However, turnover differentials tend to be very inconsistent on a week to week basis. If you look at every possible turnover differential that a team can have, teams in each group tend to average a turnover differential of about +0.0 the following week, no matter how good or bad they were in this area the following week. You can see more, here. That’s why I prefer to use yards per play differential. It’s not perfect, but it doesn’t take into account something that’s incredibly inconsistent on a week to week basis.

So both teams are underrated, but which one do I like? Well, a week ago, I probably would have said Detroit as this line was -6 and Philadelphia’s game all seem to be close, with the exception of that game in Arizona. However, since then, this line has moved to -3.5, a complete overreaction considering the Eagles didn’t look all that bad last week (they covered the spread) and the Lions didn’t play. For the record, the real line here is Philadelphia -5.5, so we’re getting line value with the Eagles now.

The line has also done a good deal of moving this week, as Detroit is a publicly backed underdog, which is driving the line down. I like betting against publicly backed underdogs and getting line value, so it’s a very small play on the hosts. I don’t have a good feel for this one though and it would be a zero unit play if I did those.

Public lean: Detroit (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Philadelphia covers)

Sharps lean (15-9 or better in LV Hilton): DET 24 PHI 8

Final update: Sharps like Detroit, but I’m still unsure.

Philadelphia Eagles 28 Detroit Lions 24

Pick against spread: Philadelphia -3.5 (-110) 1 unit

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

Oakland Raiders at Atlanta Falcons: Week 6 NFL Pick

stevenlourie 2012 NFL Picks, 2012 Week 6 NFL Picks, Falcons, Raiders

Oakland Raiders (1-3) at Atlanta Falcons (5-0)

Matt Ryan is 27-5 in his career at home, including 22-10 ATS and the Falcons are 5-0. The Raiders, meanwhile, are 1-3, coming off a blowout loss to the Broncos (before the bye) and have to travel to Atlanta and play a 1 PM ET game as a West Coast team. The Raiders, in particular, are 6-14 ATS in this situation in their since 2003. The Falcons should easily be able to cover the 9 point spread right?

Well, that seems to be what the public thinks as they are pounding the Falcons this week. I like to fade the public as much as I can anyway, but we’re also getting some line value with the Raiders. The difference between these two teams’ yards per play differentials is .6. An old gambling formula says to divide that by .15 and add 3 points either way for home field advantage, which would get us to a line of Atlanta -7, meaning we have 2 points of line value with the Raiders.

Why is this? Are the Raiders underrated. I don’t think so. A preseason overrated pick of mine, the Raiders have lived up to the billing and are 27th in terms of yards per play. Instead, it’s the Falcons who appear to be overrated. Despite their 5-0 record, they have a negative yards per play differential. That might sound ridiculous, until you consider that this team could easily be 3-2 if it wasn’t for Carolina’s horrendous end game management, Billy Cundiff’s existence, and Robert Griffin’s injury. A 3-2 with a negative yards per play differential isn’t uncommon. They’ve needed a little bit of luck to stay undefeated.

On top of that, they’ve been very reliant on the turnover, part of the reason why their yards per play differential doesn’t match up with their points differential and their record. The Falcons lead the league with a +10 turnover differential. However, turnover differentials tend to be very inconsistent on a week to week basis. If you look at every possible turnover differential that a team can have, teams in each group tend to average a turnover differential of about +0.0 the following week, no matter how good or bad they were in this area the following week. You can see more, here. That’s why I prefer to use yards to help me identify the underrated and overrated teams.

That being said, Atlanta is the pick here. I think the public has it right. Atlanta is a 9 point favorite going into a bye. 7+ favorites going into a bye are 42-17 ATS since 2002 in the regular season. Teams tend to be extra focused going into a bye and crush teams they’re supposed to crush. It’s just not a big play. Atlanta is also my survivor pick of the week on a week where there aren’t a lot of good choices. Teams in that aforementioned situation are a whopping 56-3 straight up. Atlanta isn’t losing here.

Public lean: Atlanta (new thing I’m adding, siding with the odds makers on bets is not a bad thing to do since they make so much money, so I’m listing this here to allow readers to “fade” the public, if they so choose, in this example, the odds makers win if Oakland covers)

Sharps lean: OAK 7 ATL 14

Final update: No change.

Atlanta Falcons 34 Oakland Raiders 20 Survivor Pick (HOU, NE, NO, BAL, SF)

Pick against spread: Atlanta -9 (-110) 2 units

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]

[switch_ad_hub]