NFL Best Bets
The team logos in the table below represent each of the matchups that our NFL betting staff is targeting from today's slate of games. Click on the team logos for any of the matchups below to navigate to a specific bet discussed in this article.
| Game | Time (ET) | Pick |
|---|---|---|
  | 1 p.m. | |
  | 1 p.m. | |
  | 1 p.m. | |
| 1 p.m. | |
  | 1 p.m. | |
  | 4:05 p.m. | |
Specific betting recommendations come from the sportsbook offering preferred odds as of writing. Always shop for the best price using our NFL Odds page, which automatically surfaces the best lines for every game. | ||
Packers vs. Falcons
By Billy Ward
Due to the similarities in the Packers vs. Falcons and Colts vs. Texans games – and the identical lines – I’m lumping these two picks into one. Besides, with plus-money picks like this, we expect to lose as many as we win, but we would obviously come out ahead by splitting the pair.
Both games feature spreads of 1.5 points or less on BetMGM, with the Packers game as high as two on other books. When I analyzed this bet a few years ago, I found that games with a spread of two or less have three straight scores around 56% of the time, or fair odds of -130 (YES) vs. +130 (NO).
That gives us a slight edge absent any other data points, but there’s more to like.
First, it’s somewhat reasonable to expect that games with one-point spreads are more favorable to the “NO” than games with two-point spreads, even though I lumped them together in my initial research.
More importantly, both of these games feature a total of 40 or less. All games with a total of 40 or less since 2017 have had three straight scores just 47% of the time, which would make the fair value on “NO” -112.
Games that fit the criteria (total of 40 or less and spread of less than two) are infrequent enough that it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions. However, in the sample I found, “NO” went 7-2.
Given the variance on these picks, I’d bet both of them even if that means playing a half-unit on each.
Pick: Either Team to Record 3 Unanswered Scores — NO (+140)
| | | | | |
Colts vs. Texans
By Billy Ward
See explanation above.
Pick: Either Team to Record 3 Unanswered Scores — NO (+140)
| | | | | |
Bears vs. Buccaneers
By Nick Giffen
I expect this game to play a lot slower in the first half than the second half.
Our Luck Rankings show the Bears as the unlucky team, coming 22 places lower than Tampa Bay, with a Luck Gap of nearly 96%.
Next, our Luck Team Totals show that Tampa Bay’s offense, combined with the Bears defense, was the luckiest combination to the over last week. That means Tampa Bay is the most-likely team to go under its team total, according to this metric.
Finally, the Bears get very little pressure defensively. Normally, that would help most QBs.
However, it hasn’t helped Baker Mayfield throughout his career. In each of the last two years, as well as four of the five years of his career, he’s come in well under the median QB improvement from pressure to no-pressure situations in yards per attempt.
It’s pretty easy to see this will be a ground-heavy attack for Tampa Bay to open things up. With both teams playing this way, it’s hard to see a multi-TD first half for the Bucs.
Pick: Bucs Total Points 1st Half Under 10.5 (-135)
| | | | | |
Bears vs. Buccaneers
By Billy Ward
These are teams with shaky enough quarterback play that they’d love to slow the game down and control things on the ground for as long as possible. However, the game script doesn’t always allow that to happen.
Last week, Chicago played more than 10 seconds faster per play in the second half than the first, as they were down 11 points by the time they touched the ball in the second. On the other hand, last season the Bucs played more than five seconds faster in the second half of games.
Obviously, we’re cherry picking a bit here, since Tampa Bay slowed things down significantly in the second half of its Week 1 game. However, that was because the Bucs spent the second half clinging to a close lead against the Vikings and were trying to kill the clock after trailing most of the first half.
My expectation is both teams play cautiously early on while playing not to lose. Eventually, somebody will need to get more aggressive and try to force the issue in the second half.
The bigger leap of faith might be that a faster pace actually leads to points, given the offenses involved.
Of course, poor quarterback play from the trailing team could create some short fields or defensive touchdowns, which would only help the cause here.
Pick: Highest Scoring Half: 2nd (-105)
| | | | | |
Seahawks vs. Lions
By Nick Giffen
I’ll have one of these each week as long as I’m still showing value. In this case, I have +1210 as fair odds for this game to go to overtime.
Last week, I gave out the Dolphins vs. Chargers in a high-scoring game where the home team was favored. It ended 36-34 for the Dolphins, but it had a real shot at overtime until a late missed extra point by Jason Sanders left a two-point difference between the teams instead of three.
It turns out, these type of games are exactly what we’re looking for in the overtime market.
First, the Seahawks were six-point underdogs earlier in the week, but are down to just 4.5 now. It’s likely the overtime market didn’t adjust enough as the spread moved closer.
In addition, the Seahawks are the unlucky team on the road with a Luck Difference of 24 and a Luck Gap of 107%. Road teams meeting our luck criteria are 50-19-3 ATS since 2018, so it’s possible this game plays even closer than the 4.5-point spread.
Second, high-scoring games – especially with home teams favored – tend to produce overtime more frequently in the current era, since the kickoff rule was adjusted in 2015. We could get into the theories of why this occurs, but that’s beyond the scope of this pick.
I’ll trust the data on this and table that discussion for another day. With the second-highest total of the weekend, this presents one of the best opportunities for overtime.
Pick: Will There Be Overtime? YES (+1550)
| | | | | |
49ers vs. Rams
By Sean Koerner
Coming off a massive 8/129/1 line, it looks like Aiyuk might be Brock Purdy's top receiving target this season. However, this seems like a good time to "fade" him in the receptions market.
Aiyuk caught all eight of his targets with an Average Depth of Target of 14.4. I don't care how good you are, because that's not sustainable.
Aiyuk tends to destroy man coverage but is a mere mortal when facing zone. That trend continued in Week 1, when he went 5/75/2 against the Steelers in man coverage, which was only 16% of coverage snaps. He was 2/38/0 against zone. Christian McCaffrey, Deebo Samuel and George Kittle all typically see their production increase against zone.
The Rams use zone coverage at one of the highest rates in the league. It's also a matchup where the overall play volume could be below average, which impacts a stat like receptions since it's fueled by volume.
I'm projecting Aiyuk for 4.1 receptions with a 60% chance to go under 4.5. I'd bet this down to -130.
This is not an indictment of Aiyuk's fantasy value this week. He could still do a ton of damage with four receptions since he sees so many downfield and red-zone targets, making him a WR2 option in fantasy.
| | | | | |
