I know this is old but I wanted to unload some advice on my insight to the picks.
Much of it is not from the football itself, but from numbers analysis. If the spread is 3 points or less you should ALWAYS either say they're going to cover or the other team will win outright. Why? Because even if these two teams are, on paper, 'evenly matched' that doesn't change how unpredictable football is. All it takes is one fumble, interception, or whatever to alter the course of the game from how close to the teams really are. Maybe if they played 100 games they would each win 50 of them, but we're not looking at 100 games, we're looking at one game where anything can happen. Very few actual games, no matter how close the teams truly are, are decided by such small points as 3 or less.
Even at 6 or less, I tend to favor covering over not covering. Remember, 6 or less means we're not even looking at a touchdown difference. That's a closer game than a solid majority of games that are played, even between the 'close' teams. Even then... let's say one team is ahead by 7 points, then the other team has only so much time to retaliate before the game ends. A field goal would mean that the winning team won't cover the spread, but that's irrelevant. The losing team isn't even going to try for a field goal, because unlike Las Vegas, they care about their team winning, and spreads mean nothing to them. The majority of the time in the 'coming back from behind in a desperate situation with nothing to lose' either the losing team will simply turn the ball over on downs, or worse, an interception or fumble that will cause them to lose by even more.
You should basically always say they're going to cover unless the spread is big PLUS they are two evenly matched teams. Otherwise, either they cover or the other team wins.
Then as Owen said another trick is to not overthink it and overanalyze it. Gary Kasparov, who is obviously a genius, was convinced of
this, so it's definitely possible to get tripped up on whether Richard Sherman can stop Antonio Brown, therefore will the Steelers beat the Seahawks, and not look at the big picture.
Another thing to remember is how good the teams usually do against each other. The Giants are usually weaker than the Patriots, but usually, beat them (or get close). Ditto with Seahawks and Rams, etc. Now as a season progresses, you should rely on the past less. Each season is different. At the start of each season, you're going to have to resort to how they've stereotypically done in the past because that's all you've got.
I tend to like to go with the home team because I believe in the home field advantage, maybe a little bit too much. It also depends on the stadium. Teams like the Seahawks and Chiefs have decisive home field advantages because of the noise. The Broncos do as well, but in their case, because the altitude of the stadium is exceptionally high... Broncos players are used to it and the others aren't.... But you don't even need the 'science' behind these things. If a team is almost always winning their home games, even against stronger opponents, go with the home field advantage. If it's a tossup and 'meh' between the two teams, I let the home field be the tiebreaking factor.
It's also worth noting it's in the NFL's best interest for the home field to win. I won't go as far to say the games are anywhere near 'fixed' but there can be subtle preferences for one team, which is usually the home field. As much as I hate to admit as a Seahawks fan we take this to a new level, but this is generally true for everyone. It's not that the refs are being 'bribed' even, but that they're human beings like the rest of us, something we tend to forget. Imagine being in a stadium filled with 50,000 + people who are going to be angry with you. The review of the play is a tossup... very close and you could call it either way. Which way are you going to call it? Be honest. So this is what I mean. It's not that the refs 'fix' games, only there is a subtle preference to the home field. The problem with football is because of how complex the rules are, there are going to be a LOT of close calls like that, in any given game. Remember, we have the luxury of watching the slo-mo on live television from the most convenient camera angle and even
then aren't sure half the time. The refs have far less than this. The 'benefit of the doubt' goes to the home team, the majority of the time.
But let's not get carried away here. If one team is clearly better than the other, then don't be an idiot. Cleveland stands no chance against the Patriots, period. Rather, that some of you seem to be... indifferent to the home field, and this is costing you points. It's a safe bet unless one team is just better than the other. Or if the home team has a star player who is injured, or if they're in the middle of a slump, or whatever.
Then in the playoffs teams tend to play not to lose rather than to win, which is why the closer spreads are more realistic. In the playoffs you're not going to be risky unless your opponent is quite a bit better than you (rare playoff situation since they're all playoff teams), and you have to be risky to have any chance at all. The alternative is do something risky and then the other team gets an interception or fumbles or whatever, and then everyone mocks the coach, players, etc for being idiots for a game they 'should have won' when in reality nothing was certain, to begin with.
If it's a top defense against a top offense but their offense and defense are equally bad, I almost always side with the top defense. Defense wins games, offense sells jerseys. Not only is stopping the other team's offense vital to keep your own offense in the game, but something overlooked is even your
defense has opportunities to score because of interceptions and forced fumbles.
I can't really think of anything else to add. If I think of more later, I'll say it.
