Wk 5 game picks

--THURSDAY UPDATE: POINT-SPREAD PICKS FILED--

WEEK 4 REPORT:
WINNERS: 6-8 (.428); SEASON: 38-24 (.613)
ATS: 11-3 (.786); SEASON: 38-24 (.613)
ATS BEST BETS: 4-0 (1.000); SEASON: 8-5 (.615)

I never thought I'd feel good about going 6-8 for a weekend, but considering the fact that Vegas' favorites went a combined 5-9 (that's a .357 winning percentage) and most everybody took a bath, I'm calling 6-8 a respectable week.

Also heartening: My "Confident" and "Not Betting the Farm" categories went a combined 6-3, maintaining their statistical strength (for the first month of the season, my straight-up picks in these categories have a .722 winning percentage and an Against-the-Spread winning percentage of .694) in what was otherwise a slaughterhouse week. So I'm doing a pretty good job of handicapping the games themselves, if not the winners of those games. In other words, when I tell you I'm just guessing, there's a reason, and when I tell you I'm not just guessing, it's because I see something.

Also brightening the picture for me was my Against-the-Spread list, which went a combined 11-3. Again, my benchmark for success is a .520 winning percentage, which is supposedly what you have to win to make money betting on football games. After a month I'm six games above that threshold.

And my Best Bets? After three weeks of failing to break .500, I finally went undefeated, this time with four selected games. That helps the seasonal average considerably, finally putting it up with my overall ATS percentage. Now we'll see if I can improve on that.

My seasonal straight-up average isn't where I want it to be (.650 or above), but a 10-win weekend would put me back in striking distance. Maybe I'll get lucky.

Confident (Week 4: 4-2 winners, .667; 6-0 ATS, 1.000. Season: 16-7 winners, .696; 15-8 ATS, .652)

Arizona (2-2) at (+3) St. Louis (0-4) (early): It really doesn't matter who the Rams start at QB. Either Marc Bulger or Gus Ferrotte will be running for their lives, and there's no help in sight for this injury-depleted offensive line. If you ever wondered about the value of the guys up front, look no further than St. Louis for an object lesson in why you gotta have good fat boys. That's why I'm taking the Cardinals to move above .500 here, even though they're playing on the road. ATS: There are a few reasons to be skeptical of Arizona on the road, and perhaps Gus Ferrotte is No. 1 among them. But barring an emotional uprising by the Rams, I suspect we'll see Arizona beat them down by more than a field goal. OUTCOME: Right on both.

Atlanta (1-3) at (-9) Tennessee (2-1) (early): The Falcons got off the schneid last week, and Joey Harrington might not be as bad as his reputation. At least he's rediscovered the team's wide receivers, who've been missing in action ever since the day Michael Vick showed up at Flowery Branch. But Atlanta is weak up front on defense, and they strike me as nothing more than a sparring partner for a Titans team that's turning into a quality unit. The boys from Nashville play with confidence and strength, and I'm just not going to bet against Vince Young against a weak team. ATS: The Titans are 8-2 since Nov. 19, 2006, so they're a winning team. But they've won by more than nine points only twice during that stretch, which puts them in an interesting group: Teams that have excellent winning percentages, but seldom win by large margins. I'm taking Atlanta as a road-dog even though I really have no doubt the Titans are going to win. OUTCOME: Right on both.

Cleveland (2-2) at (-16.5) New England (4-0) (early): Sure, I'm surprised the Browns are at .500 after the first four games, but no way they're above .500 after the first five. The Patriots are playing on another level right now. ATS: Giving away 16.5 points is just CRAZY in the NFL, where parity rules and ... well, you've heard all that. But here's another thing: New England's smallest margin of victory this year has been 21 points, and in 16 wins since the beginning of the 2006 season, 10 of their victories are by 17 or more points. And you know, I waivered on this one. But then I remembered, "Hey, it's Cleveland." Gimme the Patriots. OUTCOME: Right on both (by half a point on a late INT return).

Baltimore (2-2) at (+3) San Francisco (2-2) (late): Both these teams had awful games last week, and the Ravens have to travel all the way out to the West Coast for this tiff. Doesn't matter: Without Alex Smith at quarterback (and he could be done for the year), the 49ers are going to really stink up the joint. Ravens win. ATS: I've been skeptical the Ravens since the preseason, but the on the flip side I've considered the 49ers a threat to advance. A month into the season, it looks like I was kinda right about the Ravens and -- thanks to the injury to Alex Smith in particular -- dead wrong about the 49ers. Trent Dilfer is a coach, not a quarterback, and the 49ers are going nowhere this week. I'll take the favored Ravens on the road. OUTCOME: Right on winner, wrong on spread)

Dallas (4-0) at (+10) Buffalo (1-3) (MNF): I picked against the Bills last week, a mistake I won't make again: If they're playing another weak team and the win won't really take them anywhere, go with the Bills to stay mediocre. On the other hand, when they're playing somebody good, like, say, DALLAS, pick the good team. Always. ATS: Once again, I'm taking the favorite in a game with a double-digit spread. I think Dallas runs it up on the Bills.

Not Betting The Farm (Week 4: 2-1 winners, .667; 2-1 ATS, .667. Season: 10-3 winners, .769; 10-3 ATS, .769)

Carolina (2-2) at (-3) New Orleans (0-3) (early): Don't you hate games like this one? Both these teams should be better, both need the win, and absolutely anything could happen. But I'm taking the Saints for several reasons, primarily because I watched the Panthers lose to the Bucs and this team simply can't make a play when it counts. I know David Carr was bad, but his receivers dropped big-play balls like they had germs on them. And the defense? What defense? Jeff Garcia negated their pressure by stepping up in the pocket, and whenever he did that the extra second or two shook loose a receiver underneath, typically with lots of YAC production. Until they show me differently, I'm going to assume that the 2007 Panthers lack heart. ATS: Isn't it strange that the team with no wins is favored over the one with two? Should tell you something. The Saints are due, and there's something not quite right about the current Panthers. OUTCOME: Wrong on both: Panthers won on a last-second FG.

Miami (0-4) at (-6.5) Houston (2-2) (early): Falling to the Falcons was a minor surprise, but the Texans just aren't the kind of team to drop two in a row to really bad teams, particularly not when they're playing at home after an eye-opening loss. I know they're still dinged up (who isn't?), but I think they'll win this one. ATS: OK, here's a good underdog opportunity. I like Houston to win at home, but they haven't won since Andre Johnson went down with a bum knee, and Miami is a veteran defense that could do a good job of making this a low-scoring game. So Dolphins against the spread. OUTCOME: Right on both.

N.Y. Jets (1-3) at (-3) N.Y. Giants (2-2) (early): A month ago I'd have bet the Jets and happily given points, but forget that: The Giants just remembered how to play defense, and Chad Pennington had better be sharp on his hot reads, because the pressure is coming. I still think the Kevin Gilbride karma will eventually shake the Giants, but for the moment, anyway, Eli Manning is actually playing great football. ATS: Well, I'm GUESSING the Giants are the favorite here. USATODAY'S odds page just lists this one as New York -3 over New York. Anyway, the biggest story for the Jets this year is that Eric "Mangenius" Mangini isn't looking all that smart right now. The Flyboys' offense is stuck in neutral and isn't constructed to play from behind, so if the Giants get after Pennington like they got after McNabb last week, this one won't be close. OUTCOME: Right on both.

Seattle (3-1) at (-6) Pittsburgh (3-1) (early): There's at least a chance that the confidence the Seahawks got from bitch-slapping the now-doomed 49ers will carry over to the rest of the season, and let's be clear: the 2007 Seattle story will be very, very different if they can beat the Steelers on the road. I think the Steelers bring them back to earth in this game, although that could hinge on the status of Troy Polamalu. On Wednesday it looked like the star safety will play. ATS: Here I am, reversing my field and saying that even though I think the Steelers are a significantly better team, giving away 6 points is just too much in the NFL. I have no real confidence in this spread call, but I'm taking the Seahawks. OUTCOME: Right on winners, wrong on spread.
 

Just Guessing (Week 4: 0-5 winners, .000; 3-2 ATS, .600. Season: 12-14 winners, .461; 12-14 ATS, .461)

Detroit (3-1) at (-3) Washington (2-1) (early): This is a strength-on-strength, weakness-on-weakness matchup, and in these situations I tend to go with the strongest strength (Detroit's offense) instead of going against the weakest weakness (Detroit's defense). That gives me the Lions to win on the road. I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I'm still making the pick. ATS: With me picking the Lions and the Redskins coming in as the favorite, that means I'm already dancing with the Lions. OUTCOME: Wrong on both.

Jacksonville (2-1) at (+2) Kansas City (2-2) (early): Once again, I'm bedeviled by the Jaguars. Can you spot a trend in this team? If you can, would you please tell me what it is? I'm taking the Chiefs to win at Arrowhead because it's a tough place to play and Damon Huard is waking up the offense. Dwayne Bowe is a great rookie wideout, and he's opening all sorts holes for Larry Johnson and possibilities for his QB. ATS: Another upset pick, so keep me with the Chiefs. OUTCOME: Wrong on both.

San Diego (1-3) at (-1.5) Denver (2-2) (late): I sure have missed a bunch of games by backing this year's pathetic Chargers effort, and I'm doing it again. I think the Chargers win by pounding the ball against Denver's vulnerable run defense and forcing Jay Cutler to throw 40+ passes. If they don't do that, I'll put in for Norv Turner's job. ATS: I don't look at the line before I make my straight-up picks because I don't want it influencing me, and honestly, I was a bit surprised to see Denver installed as the favorite. So yet another upset pick, with the Chargers on my sheet. OUTCOME: Right on both.

Tampa Bay (3-1) at Indianapolis (4-0) (late): Peyton Manning is right back to his murderous ways, frustrating defenses with precision passes to open receivers, and the Colts are always strong early. You'd have to be crazy to pick against them at home, right? Well, call me crazy, but I think Jeff Garcia and this veteran Bucs team is perfectly positioned to pull this particular upset. Look at the tape: Garcia's feet are so active he looks like a kindergartener standing in line to pee, but his jittery style is part of this team's identity. By staying mobile and alert, Garcia keeps plays alive an extra second of two, allowing savvy veterans Joey Galloway and Ike Hilliard just enough time to shake loose, come back and get open. The loss of Cadillac Williams and their left tackle hurts, but the Buc RB committee will be productive enough to balance the attack, and the aging defensive unit will basically dare the Colts to run. I'm obviously sticking my neck out on this one, but this is the NFL, and nobody knows anything, anyway. ATS: For Tampa to win, the first thing they have to do is beat that spread. I'm down with that. OUTCOME: Wrong on both.

Chicago (1-3) at (-3) Green Bay (4-0) (SNF): There was a big storyline that got lost in the Packers' win over the Vikings last week. Had the Vikings been able to make one or two more plays, the outcome of that game would have easily been reversed. I'm very tempted to take the Bears in an upset here, but I'm going with the Packers because Chicago's defense -- already down a nose tackle and a Pro Bowl safety -- comes into this game missing both its corners, a Pro Bowl linebacker, and at least one other safety. In other words, while the Packers will struggle to run early, Brett Favre shouldn't have any trouble throwing late. To have a chance to win, Chicago will have to feed the ball to Cedric Benson and try to open some holes for him, and that's just hard to do against Green Bay at Lambeau. Still and all, I think the Packers are a bit more vulnerable than I did a week ago. ATS: This hurts, but I'm taking the Packers to win by more than three, late, after what could be a close game for three quarters. OUTCOME: Wrong on both. For the record, injured starters CB Charles Tillman (two key forced fumbles) and LB Lance Briggs (16 tackles) both wound up playing, and that really made the difference.

BEST BETS (Week 4: 4-0, 1.000; Season: 8-5, .615): Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Dallas, Miami.

(Bye weeks: Cincinnati, Minnesota, Oakland, Philadelphia)

Comments

[Rockwell]

Dan, as always, your reasoning is impeccable. You DO pay attention.

Our differences come in those close... anybody could win these match-ups type of games....

So this week... I've got the Jaguars...and you are right... they are consistently inconsistent.

I'm also taking Washington over the Lions. That will likely be a crazy, sloppy game... but maybe Gibbs and his bunch find a defensive scheme to contain Kitna.

Good luck with your picks!

[Daniel]

It's pretty obvious what I need to do to improve my percentages: Take half my Just Guessing picks each week, at random, and reverse them. Because I'm clearly doing worse than flipping a coin in that category.

I'm 8-5 going into Monday night (6-7 ATS), which means I can boost my season straight-up percentage with a Dallas win over Buffalo. But I'm falling apart every week in the Just Guessing picks. Over the past two weeks I'm a combined 1-9 in the category.