Register

Board index » Stillers Talk » New Article: Best Bets (plus two)

Anything and everything about the Pittsburgh Steelers
Stillers.com Team
User avatar
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 5:46 pm

New Article: Best Bets (plus two)

Postby trenches » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:11 pm

Best Bets (plus two) has been posted by Steel Haven at Stillers.com.

Grizzled Veteran
User avatar
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:53 pm

Re: New Article: Best Bets (plus two)

Postby Steel Holiday » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:33 pm

Denver +7 @ Ravens- Steelers have a bye this week, so it's a chance to objectively evaluate some other teams around the league. First thing as a fan I'm not "buying" is the Ravens pass defense. Certainly not against arguably the top passing offense in the NFL. The Broncos have gotten blown out in Baltimore recently due to an inability to run, and the lack of a strong passing game. This week it's doubtful they put much planning into getting the ground game going, and they devise ways to attack the week link of the Ravens team. Denver would do well to jump out to an early lead so they can build rhythm on offense, and not have to force plays. The Broncos defense has been strong against opposing rushing attacks. Baltimore passes effectively if the protection is solid as it was last week. Flacco fails under pressure. In a game of who has the better quarterback I like Kyle Orton here if he can avoid getting knocked out by the front 7 thugs of the Ratbirds.

Cleveland +3 vs Falcons- I don't encourage anyone to put $ on the Browns, and am forlorned at the thought of even predicting they will play well against a good team :no: . However, the Steelers are probably going to be watching this game, and I don't want them to think that Cleveland will be a push over the following week. Atlanta is coming off an emotional win where they stole one in front of their home crowd. Could be a letdown spot here.

Return to Stillers Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Don't be stingy, share: