# Cardinals 18, Rams 16: Every Graded Pick Backed the Loser

*Published 2026-10-19 — MissedTakes*

*Drafted by a language model from MissedTakes' graded data, then reviewed and approved by Ben Garves before publishing.*

Arizona beat Los Angeles 18-16 in Week 6, and every one of the 26 pundits whose picks we graded on this game had taken the Rams. Four of them also named a final score, and the closest of those still missed the actual margin by 12 points. The lone call in the group that landed wasn't about who would win at all.

## Which way did the pundits lean before kickoff?

Not a single graded pick sided with Arizona. Counting one pick per pundit, the split was 26 for the Rams and zero for the Cardinals, a shutout for the home favorite. The average grade across all 32 calls this game settled, winner picks, score calls and a starter call combined, came out to just 4 out of 100, about as bad as a week gets.

![All 26 graded picks backed Los Angeles, and none backed Arizona](/posts/visuals/0b803a23-867b-42aa-beae-6f8cfbbb1a0e.png)

Because the Rams were the home team, picking Arizona wasn't the default move either; the naive pick in our grading is simply the home side, and it also pointed at Los Angeles. So the Cardinals' win beat every graded forecast and the baseline both. [Chris Long](/pundits/chris-long) put it as directly as anyone: "the Rams are going to kill these guys... I see how some big favorites have been beaten outright this year by underdogs, but it ain't happening in this game." The hosts on *Pardon My Take* were just as flat: "I think the Rams are gonna kill them." Both calls scored zero accuracy once the final whistle blew.

## How far off were the score predictions?

Every pundit who named a final score had the Rams winning by double digits, and the tightest of those four calls still missed by 12 points. Arizona's actual margin was two points, a 18-16 final that none of the four forecasts came close to:

| Pundit | Call | Predicted Rams margin | Missed the final by |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| [John Breech](/pundits/john-breech) | Rams 30-20 | 10 | 12 |
| [Chris Simms](/pundits/chris-simms) | Rams 37-24 | 13 | 15 |
| [Tyler Sullivan](/pundits/tyler-sullivan) | Rams 30-17 | 13 | 15 |
| [Pete Prisco](/pundits/pete-prisco) | Rams 35-20 | 15 | 17 |

![The closest score prediction still missed the final margin by 12 points](/posts/visuals/3664ef6f-7be8-4792-9dbe-64cc6ed5a217.png)

Prisco's call was the widest miss of the four (graded 19.05 accuracy, a skill score of -45.67), while Breech came closest to the field's own mark by naming the smallest margin, though still nowhere near the actual two-point finish. Simms had flagged the uncertainty in his own words before settling on a number: "Thirty eight thirty seven twenty four, excuse me Okay. With the Rams. So, yeah, I got them barely covering," which graded to 23.81 accuracy once the final math was done.

## What was the one call that held up?

[Donnie Druin](/pundits/donnie-druin)'s call that Jacoby Brissett would remain Arizona's starter was the single correct prediction tied to this game. Writing before kickoff, Druin said "polarizing figures such as defensive coordinator Nick Rallis and starting quarterback Jacoby Brissett will be in their respective roles for another week," and Brissett did start, grading 100 accuracy. It's a different kind of call than a winner or score pick, but it's the one piece of pre-game evidence on this matchup that matched what actually happened.

## Did the misses break any streaks?

For [Pete Prisco](/pundits/pete-prisco), this result fits his season rather than breaking it: his 117 graded score calls this year sit at 54.36% accuracy, so a bad miss here pulls an average that was already middling. [Chris Simms](/pundits/chris-simms) is in a similar spot, 52% accuracy across 53 graded score calls, with a provisional overall record built on a smaller sample. [Mike Florio](/pundits/mike-florio) is the more surprising name among the misses: he sits second on our overall leaderboard with a 64.06 MissedTakes Score built mostly on strength in trade and roster calls, but his specific record on game-outcome picks is weak, 41.67% accuracy across six graded calls, so Sunday's miss was consistent with that one category rather than a break from form. Druin's hit, by contrast, extends a near-spotless season: he's third on the overall board at 96.43% accuracy across 16 graded calls, and his depth-chart predictions specifically have gone 2-for-2.

## What does this result change for these two clubs?

It keeps a theme alive against betting on Arizona to lose. Our graded outcome picks involving the Cardinals this season now stand at zero hits across seven graded calls, meaning nobody who predicted a Cardinals game outcome this year has been right yet. The Rams, meanwhile, sit at 28.2% accuracy across 85 graded outcome calls on their season, a modest number that this unanimous miss does nothing to help. For where either team's full season picture stands, see the [Cardinals](/nfl/teams/cardinals) and [Rams](/nfl/teams/rams) team pages, and the [leaderboard](/nfl/leaderboard) for how these pundits rank once more of the season is in.