Official NFL Wildcard picks + brief write-ups

Don't forget warner has went to the superbowl every year he has played a full season. Marv in Wichita.

He didn't play vs. Tennessee.

Thanks for posting them, IMSM. I like... Cincy -2' (Would've liked to have gotten some of that -3 +120 at the M though.) Jets are getting too much respect here in my opinion. Philly +4 - It's going to be difficult, IMO, for Dallas to cover 3 straight (to keep that same intensity level up back to back). The Eagles will adjust and keep this game close, I hope. NE -3' - Baltimore has yet to prove that they can win a game on the road this year against a quality opponent (with the exception early in the year vs a seemingly consistent slow-starting SD team). Brady & Co. (8-0 at home) should get a ahead early and won't let off the pedal. AZ +1' - You mean I am getting one-and-a-half points compared to only three--when the game last week was totally meaningless for the Cardinals?? They might have been weak at home [U]early[/U] in the year but this [I]is[/I] the playoffs. Remember what they did to Atlanta and Philly last year. Good luck

There's no place like home. Taking both home teams today. Bengals -2.5 and Cowboys -3.5. Yes, I think the Cowbowys are good enough for a three-peat. Jets on the other hand, are going to have a much harder time, on the road, going for the re-peat. Same Cowboy team shows up, but get ready to see an entirely different Bengal squad. And yes, I'm going to watch the games, at home.

[QUOTE=Iron Man/Subby;14586] Has covered once in last 7 - 8 games. Not a good sign. They got spanked on national TV last week ... and should want to reverse this.[/QUOTE] I'm annoyed you haven't responded to my parlay questions. Let's address your logic. Are you suggesting that a team or quarterback that hasn't covered in several games is less likely to cover in the next game? Is there any reason this would be true? If anything, I think it should be the opposite, because bettors will get sick and tired of losing money. Touts have a terrible time releasing teams to clients after they have already lost money. Are you suggesting teams have trouble getting motivated for playoffs? And the line isn't corrected for this motivation? Note this logic suggests playing on Cincinnati as well. Anyway, bad logic is better than no logic because we can discuss it.

[QUOTE=KimLee;14609]Why are you betting parlays, and why three-teamers? Why not straight bets or two-teamers?[/QUOTE] Only had a limited amount left this week to bet with. In retrospect, I should have used the straight bets. This way, I would have won the NYJ game. Then won the DAL game. Then if I lose the last two, lose a little. The parlays are 3-teamers, $100 each way. If I lose, I lose $400 total. However, if I can hang on and sweep, I win 2200. IMSM

[QUOTE=KimLee;14656]I'm annoyed you haven't responded to my parlay questions. [B] Sorry I don't always get to the computer.[/B] Let's address your logic. Are you suggesting that a team or quarterback that hasn't covered in several games is less likely to cover in the next game? Is there any reason this would be true? If anything, I think it should be the opposite, because bettors will get sick and tired of losing money. Touts have a terrible time releasing teams to clients after they have already lost money. [B]I did not suggest that a team/QB that has not covered recently...; this was just my case-by-case analysis that includes MANY factors.[/B] Are you suggesting teams have trouble getting motivated for playoffs? And the line isn't corrected for this motivation? Note this logic suggests playing on Cincinnati as well. [B]In no way do I suggest that teams have trouble getting motivated for post-season play. However, TWO factors DO come into consideration: 1) a TIRED, worn team. Whenever a head Coach takes his tired, worn team into post-season, they do not fare so well; 2) a INJURED team, the team with the most injuries at key positions lose. See CAR over PHI @ 2002 NFC Championship game. [/B] Anyway, bad logic is better than no logic because we can discuss it.[/QUOTE] [B]I love discussing anything NFL football. The responses I get can teach me things to consider for the future![/B] IMSM

Nice attention to detail, KimLee. I think what he (Iron Man) was trying to convey is the motivation for AZ will be enough to propel them to victory, unlike the Bengals and the Eagles. The "has covered once in 7 to 8 games" [Cincinnati], however, fits right into his reasoning for picking the Jets. [I]With that said,[/I] GREAT calls on both games, IMSM! You nailed both of them to a tee unlike me... The Jets and the Cowboys were clearly the better teams regardless of motivation and adjustments. They (the Bungles and the Featherless) just didn't have the talent to utilize and it showed, big time. Also, you just may be right tomorrow regarding the 'capping difficulties in the GB-AZ matchup. The first two games, esp. the Jets-Bengals game, might be a good barometer for picking the Packers instead of the Cardinals. Cincy played inferior opponents 4 out of the last 6 games of the season prior to the last game of the RS against NY. In hind sight (of course), Marvin Lewis probably should have just rested the key starters for the entire game in week 17; not giving the Jets any looks or incentive to build upon. Why he brought Palmer out for one series in the 2nd half was just plain insane. Unlike the Bengals, the Eagles won their last 6 games of the season before the RS finale in Big D. But here's the kicker, Philadelphia lost all 5 of the matchups they played against playoff teams this year (3 of them vs the Cowboys). As far as the quality of opponents faced (playoff teams), GB won 2 and lost 3 while AZ only faced two all year and went 1-1. In revisting my shallow analysis of the game, what AZ did last year really doesn't carry a whole lot of weight 1 year later under [U]different circumstances[/U]. I don't know if we will see quite the determination and confidence they exuded last year as the "up-and-comers" of the league. In conclusion I can certainly see why the line is moving (up to 2' as I type) the way it has thus far. I have yet to bet the game--and I just left my picks all at once because I didn't know if I would even be back on here before game time. None of these games are "dimes a-plenty" type bets like Alabama and the NY Giants (vs Carolina) that I posted here were. But if I can get 3 by game time I will definitely feel better about the side. OTOH, if I could have gotten the Pack at +3 (-130) at the open, knowing what I know now, I think it would be the sharper side. As far as the NE pick, I just now went back and reread your compelling arguments for Baltimore and, to put it bluntly...I'm shakin' in my f'n boots!! I might have put too much stock in how they beat the Raiders. IOWs, if Frye doesn't go down it's a much closer contest, IMO. Also, the Patriots' aging defense and Welker's replacement, rookie Julian Edelman, might have not been weighted properly as well. Once again, good luck--and your thread made me hone in a little more closely on my prognosticating. P.S. I did notice you already responded to KimLee (I haven't read it though) but I am leaving in my understanding in what I thought your reasoning was regarding the two quotes in question. [I]Man am I a slow typing/researching mother f*cker[/I]. This post took me almost two hours to complete!! Yikes. I better up the ante tomorrow to compensate. Maybe I'll tease Baltimore up to 10 ;) and AZ up to 9 (hopefully); and middle the Patriots side to boot.

After splitting yesterday's games (Bengals - what was I thinking?), I'm going to make amends today with Baltimore +4 and Green Bay -2.5. Four seems plenty of points for a Raven squad that should keep it close to a Pats team that isn't exactly a point scoring machine. Losing Welker only adds to the appeal. The Ravens were a dropped pass away from sending their first meeting into OT, and I expect another tight, and not particularly high scoring game this afternoon in frosty Foxboro. On the other hand, Green Bay is now favored over Arizona. Wish I would have gotten on their bandwagon 5 points ago. (What was I waiting for?) The Pack is plain and simple, the better team. It won't be 33-7 again, this week, but I'm expecting to see some desert deja vu. Pack laying less than a FG good enough for me.

Had a great 4-0 sweep in the Wildcard Round. Hope all that follow me cashed in as well! IMSM