***Week 7 Discussion***

[Horfin]

gsad.

Good points. TB sucks on the Road and Det Rocks at home. I was just cappin' this game. TB hasn't scored more than 20 on the road, i think. Doesn't seem like enough offense exists to hang with detroit at home.

Horfin

[gsad]

No one has talked about Detroit -2 playing at home vs TBay who's going on the road after an emotional win at home. Detroit looked good in their home wins and with 70% public on a road dog it makes me think that Detroit may be a play worth looking at. TBay only road win came against a divisional opponent against Carr. Any thoughts?

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

and see how it turns out :thumbs:

We'll see what happens....GL :thumbs:

[Stifler's Mom]

Hey...I agree with Buffalo! lol

Real surprised to see so many people liking Philly....sure, the Bears suck...but Philly does too...they have one decent win over the hapless Lions, and squeaked by noodle-arm and the Jets last week...other than that they have been embarrased by the Giants, and lost the rest. Screams no-play to me, as eaither team could get an ugly win, IMO. In fact, I would lean Chicago, because this is the first Bears line that actually makes sense to me...finally getting a decent amount of points, instead of laying them all year for some reason! Gotta be a no-play though....lol.

Nah, I think Philly wins it, so laying -5 is easy to do. The Bears are just horrible. They can't stop anyone, including the horrible Minny offense apparently. If they give up 200 some yards to Peterson who plays for a team with no passing threat, how the hell are they going to contain Westbrook?

I've seen a bunch of people with the reasoning that the Bears should cover cause "-5 is too many points for a suspect Eagles team to cover", or that it's a game that "could go either way", so the points are the way to go.

Those IMO are the strongest situations to go with the fave, because that's bad reasoning to take such a small dog. Obviously that's what the oddsmakers were shooting for when making the line....but it still comes down to pick the winner, and picking a bad Chicago team to win on the road doesn't cut it for me.

Think of it this way.....assuming 3 pts for homefield....would CHI be +2 at home? No. Therefore IMO the line is overinflated to induce CHI action....but it doesn't matter as long as it's not past +7, cause the winner should cover weather the line is +2, +3, +5, or whatever.

IMO the oddsmakers are telling me to take the Bears....so i'll play the Eagles....and see how it turns out :thumbs:

[FearTheRaven]

take it from a ravens fan, buffalo is the play this week.

chris mcalister is out for the ravens, heap probably won't play.

i really think the ravens are gearing up for after the bye week to get everyone healthy.

lee evans should have a great game against rolle.

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

Hey...I agree with Buffalo! lol

Real surprised to see so many people liking Philly....sure, the Bears suck...but Philly does too...they have one decent win over the hapless Lions, and squeaked by noodle-arm and the Jets last week...other than that they have been embarrased by the Giants, and lost the rest. Screams no-play to me, as eaither team could get an ugly win, IMO. In fact, I would lean Chicago, because this is the first Bears line that actually makes sense to me...finally getting a decent amount of points, instead of laying them all year for some reason! Gotta be a no-play though....lol.

[Stifler's Mom]

Obvious picks of the week IMO:

MIA (Bad spot for NE. MIA will play them tough IMO. Chambers being gone is a + for MIA)
BUF (BAL laying points on the road? Only due to public perception)
OAK (pub all over KC....who sucks....and the line moves UP?? OAK is easily the better team, and only because KC beat SD and OAK lost to them is the public opinion skewed on this IMO. Throw out last week's games, and which team has been better? Pick the winner at this low line.)
JAX (Indy struggles on the road in general, and against defenses who stop the run)
PHI (The Bears just plain suck. The Eagles should be able to handle that O, and their defense? Horrible. Even the McNuggets should be ok against that mess)

Some other opinions:

81% on the BUF/BAL under? Ouch, lol. Even if it seems like the right play, I cannot and will never back an under with 81% of the public on it. Especially when the line hasn't moved. Ok, it actually moved up to 35 at some books, and then back to 34.5. Whatever, that's not significant. If anything, it tells me to play the over.....although if the game goes over, i believe it's going to be due to big plays or turnovers causing short fields. Both offenses are quite capable of turning the ball over and creating short fields IMO, especially BAL with Boller at QB.

How in the hell can Seattle lay -9 points?

Or the Saints?

Or how can the Bungles lay -6? I know in that case it's pick the winner, and I'm not inclined to think the Noodle Arms go in there and get the outright W, but really....

I know, no one agrees....I'm used to it, LMFAO :thumbs:

[cavorca12]

After checking out the lines and glossing over a couple matchups, nothing immediately jumps out at me. Sides are a good majority of my plays, but when this happens (every couple weeks), I check out the totals a bit more and throw some in. Here are some totals that I'm leaning toward:

NE/Mia Under 52 - Ugh, after posting about the great NE off, I naturally end up leaning on the under. If NE dominates, scoring their 30 or so, I'd lean toward Mia not getting enough points for an over. If you like NE, I think this is safer than the NE side, because if NE covers/plays well, I'd imagine Mia doesn't put up a ton of points. On the other hand, if NE stumbles/Mia plays well, closer game, maybe def's show up, NE doesn't put up 40+, you still have a shot at the under instead of losing the NE side. Of course, NE could get 40+, Mia throws the whole game and scores upper 20's, easy over, but I'm liking the probability of an under considering the different ways this game could go.

Pitt/Den Over 39 - most everyone saying Den is done, really liking Pitt, and jumping all over the Pitt side. While I'm not sure I want to play the Den side, I think this goes over if they cover. Check out the last 3 opponents for each team:
Pitt: Sea, AZ, SF - 3 teams from the NFC West, the worst division in the NFL, with relatively weak off's.
Den: Indy, Jax - 3 of the top teams from the AFC, which is clearly stronger than the NFC
Den has allowed a ton of rushing yards, but look at who they've played. Maybe I'm making the numbers say what I want them to, but it's possble to argue Den's def isn't as bad as everyone thinks. Their last 4 opps (SD, Indy, Jax, and Oak) have avg a total of 172 rushing ypd the last 4 wks, while Den allowed them 204 ypg. Playing with the numbers a bit, you can knock the Den number down a bit more. I don't have time to get into my reasoning, plus it's lengthy, but I'll post it some time later today. Again, I'm sure anyone can fudge numbers to make it say what they want and I'm not saying Den has a great def, however, I'm warming to the possibility of Den being beaten down more than they should be. Going on, Den's off is above avg IMO, and we know Pitt can score. Given both teams are coming off byes as well, I'm leaning toward the over and think it might be one of my fav's this week.

Any thoughts???

[cavorca12]

Horfin and Shamrock, thanks for the reply. I am hesitant to play NE this week, mostly for those reasons. In their last 10 meetings, going back to 2002, NE is 6-4 SU and ATS, with the home team winning SU and ATS the past 2, the road team SU and ATS the 2 before that. There are some patterns on ATS and SU winners that don't really mean a whole lot to me but are still interesting and maybe worth a peek. But yeah, I'm not 100% positive, but I think I recall hearing that Brady's worst record against a team is v Miami. Not 100% sure, but I think it may be right. And actually, going back a couple years, I still remember the MNF game a couple years back when Miami came from no where and won, which kind of seems eerily similar to this year.

Horfin, you're right in that it wouldn't be very smart to blindly bet them each week. I guess I was also basing that assuming NE can sustain a reasonably close level of play to where they are now, which is near impossible to do week in week out in the NFL (letdown weeks, poor situations like b2b road, as you said, ect.). Although, the reason it probably crossed my mind is how consistent NE has been in the past and this year. Games like those v Mia this week with some warning signs are difficult to go with, but given their level of play thus far, it's hard to go against NE most weeks. Haha, I'm actually sitting here thinking of several arguments both ways, so who knows. Maybe all the media fluf has gotten to me too, but I am eager to see how this week againt Mia goes though. I haven't looked at the game much yet, so I have no idea if it'll be a play for me in any way, but I'm sure I'll be thinking of this more so next week if NE comes out and blows the doors off.

[Q-Unit]

Buffalo

and Dolphins :thumbs:

Ravens playing NFC West lately and beating up on them, thats like playing my sister. easy. LMAO I can joke cuz I dont have a sister.

Buffalo team off of epic collapse but I still like how gritty they are, and announcing JP Losman isnt starting should only be a plus.

Dolphins, no reason other than I'm 1-4 betting on any pats games this year.

the 1 win was when i took them LOL. they gotta lose sometimes the damn muthereffers!

[Horfin]

Atl is probably the smart play esp if it hits 10

[bookiekilla]

I'm totally with you on Norwood. Guy breaks off a 67 yard td run & you hand the ball off to him 5 more times? Maybe it's just because he's on my fantasy team LoL.


Right off the bat there's something wrong with the Saints laying 9 pts when they are coming off their first win as a dog. Are they all of a sudden right back on track? Hasselbeck still threw for 362 against them, & Seattle still averaged 4.4 ypc. I'm starting to look at the over 42, as I think both teams will be able to move the ball....

Yeah Udogg...here locally, nobody can figure out why the fck norwood is not getting any more touches in this offense....get him the ball in space and get the hell out of the way...he's so damn explosive. He should be touching the ball around 15 times a game minimum on offense...runs, screens, etc...he's the only playmaker we got on offense. Well, the coaching staff (once again) has said, like they do every week, that they will try and find ways to get norwood more involved in the offense. I really don't want to back the falcons after last week's awful showing, but not sure if I can lay off gettting almost double digits from a 1 win team...the one thing the falcons are not good against is a bruising rb and if Duece was in this game, I could see this line...but not with Bush..one thing the falcons do have on D is speed with Abraham and Anderson on the ends, along with boley and williams at the OLB positions...I don't know..still figuring it out..

[Underdog88]

Just an FYI on the Falcons / Saints game this weekend. Leftwich has been named the starter for the Falcons...not sure how much thats going to help the Falcons, but the offense can't look any worse than it did monday night. Now I wish they would come out and say that Norwood is going to take Dunn's starting job...now THAT would make a huge difference IMO......I don't know what to think of this line...it's at 9 right now.....so the saintsa are all of a sudden good enough to be a 9 point fav against a division rival?

I'm totally with you on Norwood. Guy breaks off a 67 yard td run & you hand the ball off to him 5 more times? Maybe it's just because he's on my fantasy team LoL.


Right off the bat there's something wrong with the Saints laying 9 pts when they are coming off their first win as a dog. Are they all of a sudden right back on track? Hasselbeck still threw for 362 against them, & Seattle still averaged 4.4 ypc. I'm starting to look at the over 42, as I think both teams will be able to move the ball....

[DevilsAdvokt]

falcons vs saints


ESPN - Struggling Falcons insert Leftwich as starting QB - NFL

[Shamrock]

just bustin' balls..............