2012 Week 7 NFL Picks

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.