Oakland Raiders vs. Kansas City Chiefs: Spread Analysis and Pick Prediction
The Kansas City Chiefs may be 5-0, but they are on a seven-game losing streak when it comes to Oakland in Week 6 action at Arrowhead Stadium. The Raiders are 7-0 ATS in their past seven visits here and they get 10 points to work with from most sportsbooks monitored by OddsShark.com.
Point spread: Chiefs opened as 7.5-point favorites; the total was 41. (Line updates and Matchup report)
Computer Prediction: 31.1-16.3 Chiefs
Why the Raiders can cover the spread
Oakland, with Terrelle Pryor back in the saddle at QB, just looked pretty good beating San Diego on Sunday night. The Raiders out-rushed the Chargers 104-32, picked off Philip Rivers three times, committed zero turnovers themselves and got an 18-for-23 passing performance from Pryor, who's 3-0-1 ATS on the season.
Also, the Raiders have beaten the Chiefs three times in a row and eight of the last 11 in this divisional rivalry.
Why the Chiefs can cover the spread
KC is the most pleasant surprise of the early season, at 5-0 SU and 4-1 ATS. New head coach Andy Reid is known as an offensive guru, but it's been the Chiefs defense that's led the way so far, ranking seventh overall and giving up fewer points than any other team in the league.
And last week, facing a bit of adversity, down four points in the fourth quarter on the road at Tennessee, KC rallied for the victory and the cover. They are 8-3 ATS in 11 recent games against the Chiefs.
OddsShark's NFL predictor computer is calling for a 31-16 Chiefs victory and cover, which might be accurate if Oakland suffers what would be a predictable letdown after beating San Diego.
But the Raiders might have found something with Pryor, and they've had KC's number over recent seasons (7-0 ATS in seven trips here). Also, 10 points seems like a lot for this rivalry. Go with Oakland and the points.
Raiders 7-0 ATS past 7 trips to Kansas City
Chiefs 3-8 ATS overall vs. Raiders past 11 meetings
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?