The reality is, I don’t really know anything this week that I didn’t know last. And that was pretty much nothing. So, you know, here’s what you really, really, really shouldn’t expect.<\/p>\n
Oakland (+4) at Buffalo<\/strong> Green Bay (-10) at Carolina<\/strong> Kansas City (+8) at Detroit<\/strong> Cleveland (-2) at Indianapolis<\/strong> Tampa Bay (+2) at Minnesota<\/strong> Chicago (+6.5) at New Orleans<\/strong> Jacksonville (+9) at NY Jets<\/strong> Seattle (+14) at Pittsburgh<\/strong> Baltimore (-6) at Tennessee<\/strong> Arizona (+3.5) at Washington<\/strong> Dallas (-3) at San Francisco<\/strong> Cincinnati (+3.5) at Denver<\/strong> Houston (-3) at Miami<\/strong> San Diego (+7) at New England<\/strong> Philadelphia (-2.5) at Atlanta<\/strong> St. Louis (+6.5) at NY Giants<\/strong>
\nTommy Kelly<\/a> is right: The Raiders clearly are not the Chiefs<\/a>. For one thing, the Raiders aren’t as banged up as the Chiefs. For another, the Raiders have the personnel on defense to bring considerably more pressure than the Chiefs did last week<\/a>. That’s meaningful, I suppose. Thing is, all it ultimately means is that one can safely assume that the Bills won’t be running away with a 41-7 victory over another AFC West team. And I think we could have made that assumption without Tommy Kelly’s help. The problem for the Raiders is that, unlike the Chiefs, they’re not at home. They’re doing the 1 p.m. East Coast game thing that’s typically deadly to West Coast teams. They’re also playing on the shortest possible week \u00e2\u20ac\u201d diving into an early Sunday game following a late Monday nighter. Also, it’s worth noting that while the Bills probably aren’t a Super Bowl contender, they’re also not at the same place as the newly rebuilding Denver Broncos. I’ll take the Raiders to cover, but the Bills straight up. Buffalo by a field goal.<\/p>\n
\nCam Newton<\/a> had a hell of an NFL debut<\/a>, didn’t he? Now let’s see what he (and, you know, the rest of the Panthers) can do against the defending champs, a team with one of the best defenses in the league and that’s playing on 10 days rest. I don’t expect the results to be quite so impressive. I have a hard time picking road teams to win by double digits, so I’ll go with Green Bay by nine.<\/p>\n
\nThe results<\/a> probably can’t get any uglier for the Chiefs, but the outlook for 2011 sure doesn’t appear to be getting prettier<\/a>. And now Kansas City has to travel to Detroit to face the Lions’ crushing defensive front. I don’t think I can bear to look. Lions by 14.<\/p>\n
\nGetting two points at home. From the Browns, a team that took it on the chin<\/a> from the Bengals in their own building a week ago. That’s how bad things are looking for the Manningless Colts. You’ve gotta wonder if there’s any way things could get more depressing in Indy. Oh, I know. What if the Colts actually lose by a touchdown? That should do it.<\/p>\n
\nOK, so the Vikings started strong against the Chargers last week. They still managed to lose<\/a>. More important, their new quarterback<\/a> looked downright awful. And while the Bucs dropped their home opener<\/a> to the Lions, their young quarterback<\/a> held up well against an outstanding pass rush. So, I don’t know. I kinda like the visitors here. Tampa Bay by three.<\/p>\n
\nI won’t argue that beating the Falcons<\/a> in Chicago wasn’t impressive. It was. But I’ll believe the Bears can take that show on the road against a team as good as the Saints (who, by the way, are playing on 10 days rest) when I see it. Saints by a touchdown.<\/p>\n
\nThe Jaguars aren’t quarterbacked by Tony “Meltdown” Romo<\/a>. So they’ve got that going for them, which is relatively meaningless. Frat Boys by 12.<\/p>\n
\nYou’ve gotta kinda feel bad for the Seahawks. It’s their second straight week playing on the road and they have to go in to Pittsburgh and face an angry, angry Steelers <\/a>squad. I expect to see bloodshed. Pittsburgh by 20.<\/p>\n
\nI don’t care that the Titans are at home, I’m not sure six is half enough. The Ravens aren’t the Jaguars<\/a>. And the Titans sure as hell aren’t the Steelers (by which I mean they’re not as good as the team the Ravens destroyed<\/a> last weekend). Baltimore by 14.<\/p>\n
\nI’m not sure last weekend’s result revealed much about either of these teams. The rebuilding Native Americans took advantage<\/a> of the injury-depleted Giants. And the Cardinals barely held off <\/a>the rebuilding Panthers. I guess all I can take away from either result is that I continue to view the Arizona defense as highly suspect. So with that in mind, I’ll take the home team here straight up, though I’ll look for the Cardinals to keep the margin to something like a point or two.<\/p>\n
\nOK, Jerry<\/a>, so if that disaster in New Jersey<\/a> Sunday night was “one of the best games<\/a>” you’ve ever seen Tony Romo<\/a> play, why on earth is the guy continuing to start for your team? Seems like a reasonable question to me. I’m fairly certain the Cowboys will be able to overcome their own lousy quarterback play and beat the all-new 49ers, but I wouldn’t put money on it. Dallas by a field goal.<\/p>\n
\nOoh, look. It’s a giant circus of awfulness. The Bengals are playing on the road for a second straight week. The Broncos are playing on short rest. I expect the result to be some incredibly sloppy football. I’ll take the home team, and assume they can beat the Bengals by at least four. But it’s all gonna come down to which direction the fumbles bounce in and the reality is that there’s just no way to account for that in advance.<\/p>\n
\nThe final score<\/a> may have been unappealing edging toward ugly, but I actually thought the Dolphins showed some very positive signs on Monday night. And I don’t think the Texans’ blowout victory <\/a>over the Colts revealed anything in particular about Houston. I’m going to cautiously take the home team in this one, even though it worries me more than a bit that they’re playing on short rest and may have trouble shaking off their discouraging start. Dolphins by a point.<\/p>\n
\nIn the wake of Monday night’s record-setting performance<\/a> by the Patriots offense, the big question going around was, are the Pats that good or are the Dolphins that bad? I rather think the answer is neither. I mean, look, Tom Brady <\/a>and company overcame what one still has to suspect is a very good defensive unit (particularly in the secondary) to log all those yards and put up all those points. That’s something. But the New England defense still appears to be missing a solid pass rush. It’s possible that one will emerge as the season goes on and the reinvented unit truly comes together, but the inability to get to the quarterback remains a problem until proven otherwise. That said, I didn’t see anything in San Diego’s narrow win<\/a> over a tired-looking Minnesota squad on Sunday that made me think the Chargers the force to be reckoned with that they’re perennially considered heading into NFL seasons. And I’ll say this: Donovan McNabb<\/a> managed to accomplish nothing against San Diego last week and his team still had a chance to pull off an upset on the road. If that’s the level at which the Chargers are playing, how are they likely to fare against Brady’s team? Not well, right? I’m not giving a touchdown, because San Diego always finds a way to play New England tough. But I do like the Patriots to come out on top. Let’s say by four.<\/p>\n
\nThe Falcons absolutely have to win this game. Seriously. In week two. I mean, it’s not like they can’t<\/em> recover from an 0-2 start, but on 0-2 start including a loss that could cost them home field in a bigger game come January would be more than at bit problematic. I think the Eagles are the better squad here, but I’m gonna take the home team with its back against the wall over the squad playing its second straight road game. Falcons by three.<\/p>\n
\nAnd the annual parade of games that no one cares about and no one would watch if they weren’t on Monday night begins. Hooray! New Jersey by a touchdown.<\/p>\n