Picks, Pats, and Pardons Week Five

[kleese]

Last Week: 12-3
Season: 36-27
Redskins: 1-3
ATS: 8-7-1 (4-0 last week)
Lock: 2-1-1


Nice bounce back week; especially ATS where I not only went 4-0, but each of the four games wound up being a relatively easy cover. Maybe this will kickstart a hot streak...


Arizona at St. Louis: Cardinals are 3-0 now in "coin flip" games that went down to the wire. I think Arizona is good, but they aren't THAT good. It is tough to call right now if they will drift back down to earth or crash. I like this spot for the Rams but don't trust their offense yet enough to pick them to win. Tread lightly here though.


Cardinals 19, Rams 17


Seattle at Carolina: Panthers poured their hearts into that game in Atlanta last week and losing like they did had to be very deflating. Seattle slogged through their loss in St. Louis. I see two teams here that really could use a W, but I'll stick with the trend of going against Seattle on their cross country trips.


Panthers 24, Seahawks 17


Philadelphia at Pittsburgh: It might be the shakiest 3-1 in NFL history, but it is still 3-1 and the Eagles have wins over the Ravens and Giants already. Even when being swarmed under by a mountain of criticism Andy Reid seems to just keep winning. But this is a tough spot this week. Philly catches the Steelers grumpy, rested, healthy, and at home. If Pitt doesn't win this game, you can kiss their season goodbye.


Steelers 27, Eagles 20
.................................................. ............

www.edkleese.blogspot.com

[Riggo-toni]

Go Steelers!

[kleese]

Ravens, Steelers, and Bengals (not going to worry about the Browns) can all do us some favors in the coming weeks....Kind of a "must lose" for Philly if the rest of the division wants to feel good about catching them.

[kevinklein]

Considering your record so far picking the Skins, I suppose we should all rejoice at a projected loss.

As for Philly being a "must-lose", kindly ply me with whatever drugs you're smoking. If they win they're 4-1. Assume the Skins or the Giants win, and are 3-2. That's one game back...after week 5. Hardly sounds dire.

[kleese]

Considering your record so far picking the Skins, I suppose we should all rejoice at a projected loss.

As for Philly being a "must-lose", kindly ply me with whatever drugs you're smoking. If they win they're 4-1. Assume the Skins or the Giants win, and are 3-2. That's one game back...after week 5. Hardly sounds dire.

I said "must loss" if you want to feel good about catching them, not that it would be over.

If the Eagles win this week, they will be 4-1 with wins over the Ravens, Giants, an Steelers with their QB turning the ball over on a historic pace. If you can do that and still beat SB contending teams that bodes pretty well for your squad.

[kevinklein]

I said "must loss" if you want to feel good about catching them, not that it would be over.

If the Eagles win this week, they will be 4-1 with wins over the Ravens, Giants, an Steelers with their QB turning the ball over on a historic pace. If you can do that and still beat SB contending teams that bodes pretty well for your squad.

5 weeks into the season, regardless of record or previous opponents, I hesitate to use the "Super Bowl contender" tag so liberally. See: 2011 Buffalo Bills.

[kleese]

5 weeks into the season, regardless of record or previous opponents, I hesitate to use the "Super Bowl contender" tag so liberally. See: 2011 Buffalo Bills.

Difference being the Bills had no past history of success and were winning games with unsustainable turnover margins. Andy Reid and crew have been around long enough to garner respect if they start 4-1 with that schedule all the while badly losing the turnover battle

[kevinklein]

Difference being the Bills had no past history of success and were winning games with unsustainable turnover margins. Andy Reid and crew have been around long enough to garner respect if they start 4-1 with that schedule all the while badly losing the turnover battle

The error I see here is that you use the Bills' unsustainable turnover margin as a foreshadowing of failure, whereas you use the same exact argument to predict success for the Eagles.

[kleese]

The error I see here is that you use the Bills' unsustainable turnover margin as a foreshadowing of failure, whereas you use the same exact argument to predict success for the Eagles.

Because its the opposite and things generally head back towards the average. The Bills were WINNING the turnover battle at a pace that seemed unsustainable and it eventually evened out and they started losing games. The Eagles are losing the turnover battle at a pace that seems unlikely to continue yet they are still winning games. If the turnovers start to even out it stands to reason that the Eagles will have an even better chance to win their games.

Now, I don't really believe in this Eagles team and I think they lose Sunday. But IF they win.... Big feather in their cap and you'd have to take notice.

[kevinklein]

Because its the opposite and things generally head back towards the average. The Bills were WINNING the turnover battle at a pace that seemed unsustainable and it eventually evened out and they started losing games. The Eagles are losing the turnover battle at a pace that seems unlikely to continue yet they are still winning games. If the turnovers start to even out it stands to reason that the Eagles will have an even better chance to win their games.

Now, I don't really believe in this Eagles team and I think they lose Sunday. But IF they win.... Big feather in their cap and you'd have to take notice.

Ah, I understand now. I misread what you meant about the Bills.

[PerryMason]

You picked the Falcons? Good thing you're horrible at picking Redskins games this year.