{"id":297,"date":"2012-09-27T12:56:43","date_gmt":"2012-09-27T16:56:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thisfootballblog.com\/?p=297"},"modified":"2012-09-27T12:56:43","modified_gmt":"2012-09-27T16:56:43","slug":"week-four-picks-9","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.thisfootballblog.com\/?p=297","title":{"rendered":"Week Four Picks"},"content":{"rendered":"

So I had this whole thing written about the scab refs and how they were ruining the game, and then the NFL<\/a> had to go and get a deal done<\/a> with the real officials. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. No, really. Aw, hell, here’s what not to expect in week four.<\/p>\n

Cleveland<\/a><\/strong> (+12) at <\/strong>Baltimore<\/a><\/strong>
\nBrandon Weeden<\/a> may someday become the quarterback the Browns think he can be. Right now, he’s the 30th best QB in the NFL. That’s not gonna cut it in Baltimore. I can’t put it any more simply than that. Ravens by 17.<\/p>\n

New England<\/a><\/strong> (-4) at Buffalo<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nIt’s too simple to say that the Patriots simply cannot afford a third straight loss. It’s true (although it’s not like New England couldn’t possibly recover from a 1-3 start; they’ve done it before<\/a>), but needing a win doesn’t actually get you to a win. And the Buffalo Bills, week one results<\/a> notwithstanding, aren’t the kind of team you can count on simply to roll over. The Bills pass defense has been stout. Ryan Fitzpatrick<\/a> has thrown for eight TDs, which is twice as many as Tom Brady<\/a> and ties Fitzpatrick with Matt Ryan<\/a> and Ben Roethlisberger <\/a>for most in the league. The Bills also have been running the ball as well as any team in the league (though there’s some possibility that a pair of nagging injuries<\/a> may slow them down a bit). If you were simply to look at a stat sheet, in fact, you could come away with the idea that the Bills were the better team. But that would leave out the fact that Buffalo hasn’t played much of anyone yet, while New England over the past two weeks has faced two of the better teams in the league. The Patriots lost both of those games, of course, but not by much (and not, in the most recent instance<\/a>, without the influence of the scab referees). NFL schedules have a way of correcting skewed statistics, and I’m confident that for both the Patriots and the Bills, the correction process will begin to kick in here. Brady starts throwing touchdowns and New England comes out ahead by at least a touchdown.<\/p>\n

Minnesota<\/a><\/strong> (+4.5) at Detroit<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nThe Vikings caught the 49ers off guard<\/a> last weekend. They’re not gonna be able to surprise Detroit. But the Lions allow opponents to find the end zone far too often to be favored by four and a half. I’ll take Detroit straight up, Minnesota with the points.<\/p>\n

Carolina<\/a><\/strong> (+7) at Atlanta<\/a><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong>
\nBy the time they take the field for this game, the Panthers will have had 10 days either to recover from or stew over their week three prime time humiliation<\/a> at the hands of the New Jersey Giants. Maybe they’ll have learned something (by which I mean something somewhat less obvious than, if your quarterback<\/a> throws three stupid picks, you generally lose the game). And maybe that something will help them. Eventually. Not in this game. Because almost nothing is going to help the Panthers in this game. Not against an Atlanta squad that’s outscoring most of the league on offense, giving up fewer points than most of the league on D, picking off balls left and right, and apparently streaking toward having the NFC South title sewn up by mid-season. And not against a quarterback<\/a> who’s not simply finally playing up to his potential, but outplaying every other passer in the NFL. Ryan has thrown eight TDs to just a single interception this season. That’s just below record pace. And while it’s unlikely to hold up over 16 games, I feel fairly confident that it will hold up in this one, in which he faces a Carolina defense that has allowed opposing QBs to complete better than 68 percent of their passes so far this season. Atlanta takes this one by no fewer than 10.<\/p>\n

San Francisco<\/a><\/strong> (-4) at NY Jets<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nThe 49ers indubitably are the better team in this match. But they’re also a team playing their second consecutive road game (the first of which didn’t work out too well<\/a>), and a west coast team playing an early game on the east coast. Neither of those factors promises to be kind to San Francisco. In fact, if it weren’t for the season-ending injury<\/a> suffered last weekend by the best cornerback in the game<\/a>, I might actually have been tempted to pick New Jersey. But they Jets don’t have their best DB, and the dropoff to their second best, and from their second to their third, is steep. The Jets also don’t have any ability to stop the run, which is a problem when you face the Niners. I still think the travel takes its toll, so I’m not giving four. But I like San Francisco to win it, let’s say by a field goal.<\/p>\n

San Diego<\/a><\/strong> (+1) at Kansas City<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nKansas City’s giveaway-takeaway differential is a league-worst -8. They’re going nowhere until they solve that problem. The Chiefs also need to learn how to finish drives. And to defend against the run. The Chargers aren’t a great football team, but they’re good enough to squeak by a Chiefs squad that hasn’t quite figured out that the regular season is well underway. San Diego by three.<\/p>\n

Tennessee<\/a><\/strong> (+12) at Houston<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nThe Texans might be the best team in football (or they might not be, but they’re certainly no worse than top three, at least for the nonce). The Titans are, um, you know, not. Here’s something odd \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and probably only interesting to me, because I’m weird like this: Houston’s net points through week three are a league-best (tied, actually with Atlanta) +46; Tennessee’s net points are a league-worst -46. Spooky, right? Or not. Anyway, that’s a 92-point differential. Divide that by three and you get pretty close to 31. So considering that, I’m gonna go ahead and say, sure, the Texans should take this one by better than 12. Maybe more like 20.<\/p>\n

Seattle<\/a><\/strong> (-2.5) at St. Louis<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nOK, so we all know that the Seahawks are a 1-2 team masquerading as a 2-1 team. (Thanks, scab refs.) But here’s the thing: the Rams are a 1-2 team that isn’t even masquerading as a promising 1-2 team. Neither of these squads has much of anything to offer by way of offense. But Seattle at least has a D. That should be enough to get the job done. Seahawks win one for real this time, probably by a field goal.<\/p>\n

Miami<\/a><\/strong> (+6.5) at Arizona<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nReally? Six and a half? The 3-0 team that has in the last two weeks beaten New England<\/a> on the road and trounced Philadelphia<\/a> at home is hosting the 1-2 team that last week blew a seven-point fourth quarter lead<\/a> to the New Jersey Jets in its own building, and, the one time this season its traveled to face a good team, was absolutely destroyed<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and they’re only giving six and a half? I’ll give double that and then some. Cardinals by two touchdowns.<\/p>\n

Oakland<\/a><\/strong> (+6.5) at Denver<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nOne of these teams is gonna come out of this game 2-2. And since the one that’s playing at home is also the one that has been able to score at least some of the time and prevent its opponents from scoring at least some of the time, my inclination is to shrug slightly and pick that one. The Raiders win the first half 13-3, but the Broncos bring it back around in the second and come out ahead 27-23.<\/p>\n

Cincinnati<\/a><\/strong> (-2.5) at Jacksonville<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nThe Bengals probably aren’t as good as their 2-1 record implies. But the Jaguars almost certainly aren’t as good as their 1-2. In a game that takes place almost entirely on the ground, and takes all of about two and a half hours to play, the Bengals come out ahead by four.<\/p>\n

New Orleans<\/a><\/strong> (+7.5) at Green Bay<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nWhen the 2012 schedule was released back in April, this looked like one of those games early in the season that might have major implications for the post-season. Not so much. The Saints arguably aren’t even looking to salvage their season any more. They’re 0-3, looking up at the 3-0 Atlanta Falcons in the NFC South and quite simply one of those teams that would probably be better served thinking about the draft than the playoffs. The Packers are 1-2, even if they should be 2-1. They’re angry about what happened in Seattle<\/a> Monday night and no doubt ready to take it out on this week’s opponents. I fully expect the result to reflect that. But that doesn’t mean I expect the Packers to have a perfect game. There’s something amiss in Green Bay, something that I expect will slow down the Packers offense in this game and that bodes ill for the team’s long-term prospects. It’s this: Aaron Rodgers<\/a> is currently the most sacked quarterback in the NFL. He’s taken 16 sacks in three games. And while eight of those came on Monday night, it remains the case that pass rushers are getting to Rodgers far too often. Look at Monday night as a statistical anomaly, and you still have Rodgers going down four times a game. Factor in the Seattle game and it shoots up to 5.3. That puts him on pace for somewhere between 64 and a record 85 sacks this season. It points to why a guy with a career passer rating of 103.2, and who finished last season with a record 122.5, is currently looking at an 87.0. The Packers need to figure out a way to protect their franchise or they’re going nowhere this season. But that isn’t a worry this week. Rodgers may take a sack or two, but the Saints just aren’t equipped to do any real damage on D. The Packers are. And that should be the difference. Green Bay by 10.<\/p>\n

Washington<\/a><\/strong> (+3) at Tampa Bay<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nClearly the Native Americans are a much different team now that they don’t have a defense<\/a>. I don’t see how that stops biting them on their asses, even when the level of competition is just the Buccaneers. Still, I’m not giving a field goal. Tampa by one.<\/p>\n

NY Giants<\/a><\/strong><\/strong> (+2) at Philadelphia<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>
\nThis is another one of those games with a mystery spread. I get that these teams are both 2-1. I get that the Giants are on the road. I get that it’s an important division game. But come on, already. The Eagles are -6 in giveaway\/takeaway differential. That’s worst in the conference, second worst in the league. Their coach has said he’ll evaluate his quarterback options<\/a> as he goes. Why? Because he’s got a starter who can’t stop taking sacks and giving the ball away. Michael Vick<\/a> has thrown six interceptions to just three touchdowns so far this season. He’s a 55 percent passer with a 66.2 passer rating. Those are awful numbers. You can’t win with a guy who continues to perform like that. And this week, Vick gets to face a Giants defense that has recorded two sacks and two interceptions per game \u00e2\u20ac\u201d while playing against quarterbacks that don’t consistently take sacks and throw picks. I mean, how do you think this is likely to turn out? Me, I’m taking the Giants straight up. I’d give six if I had to.<\/p>\n

Chicago<\/a><\/strong> (+3.5) at Dallas<\/a><\/strong>
\n<\/strong>Speaking of quarterbacks that take too many sacks and throws too many picks, can we just call it a career for Jay Cutler<\/a>? Because it’s getting really, really, really hard to watch him fail to play football. Dallas by a touchdown.<\/p>\n

<\/div>