Best Broncos-Cardinals TNF Prop Bets: Josh Rosen Over/Under 1 Passing TDs?

Best Broncos-Cardinals TNF Prop Bets: Josh Rosen Over/Under 1 Passing TDs? article feature image

Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports. Pictured: Josh Rosen

  • There are two props offering betting value in the Thursday Night Football game between the Denver Broncos and Arizona Cardinals.
  • This piece will analyze the following prop bets: Cardinals QB Josh Rosen over/under 1 passing touchdown and Cardinals TE Rickey Seals-Jones over/under 2.5 receptions.

There are two NFL player prop bets offering value in the Broncos-Cardinals matchup on Thursday Night Football, which kicks off at 8:20 p.m. ET on NFL Network and Fox.

The Action Network’s public betting data will often be used in this data-driven analysis of props, along with the player props tool at FantasyLabs.

Cardinals QB Josh Rosen

The pick: Over 1.0 passing touchdown (-165 at Bovada)

Denver is tied for the eighth-fewest passing touchdowns allowed per game this year (1.5), but only two weeks ago, the Broncos gave up three to Sam Darnold and the Jets.

Only Jared Goff, surprisingly, has failed to throw at least one touchdown pass against the Denver defense this season.

That said, Denver ranks as the 10th-fastest paced team in neutral situations this season, which could lead to more plays for a Cardinals team that has preferred to slow things down (25th).

Cardinals TE Rickey Seals-Jones

The pick: Over 2.5 receptions (-105 at 5Dimes)

Despite a solid pass defense overall, the Broncos rank 28th against tight ends and have allowed the sixth-most receiving yards (70.33 per game) to the position.

Seals-Jones is coming off of a five-catch performance on six targets in Week 6, but this prop doesn’t come without risk, as he converted zero of his six targets into catches the week before.

In addition, Denver is the fourth-worst defense in the league against passes that travel 16 or more yards in the air (Football Outsiders), but RSJ — 4.5 air yards per target — still looks like a solid value at -105.

How would you rate this article?