Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Todd Gurley is the X-factor in all this. I'm not sure that I'd touch the line but the over looks intriguing.
|
Covers | 18 |
|
|
Cincinnati -4 is as close to a lock as it gets. Dalton has looked better this season than at any time in his career. He's only been sacked twice all year with 1 INT and the KC secondary sucks. Alex Smith? Not so much. He's regressed as a QB and is on a short turnaround and on the road. He's been sacked 13 times in 3 games and has been picked off 3 times. His O-line sucks. The Bengals will load the box to stop Jamal Charles long enough to allow Dalton to hook up with AJ Green for a couple TD's. Tyler Eifert, Marvin Jones, Giovani Bernard and Jeremy Hill will do the rest. Don't expect Dalton to dominate like Rodgers but don't be too surprised if Dalton gets close to the same results.
|
Covers | 14 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by MilsBest: I don't know who told you Adams aint playing (because he is)and starks always picks up lacy's slack.Hell sometimes he even plays better then lacy... There's always some asshat on here who can't resist correcting others. Adams was only recently upgraded from questionable to probable, genius. But, since Adams really hasn't has that much of an impact this year I stand by my original post. GL to all.
|
Covers | 51 |
|
|
I'm a Packers fan but I don't see them winning by a TD. I see them winning but more like by 4 or 5 points. No Nelson, no Lacy, no Adams (no Bulaga) means their drives will be more deliberate just as they were in both of their first two games. The KC defence is pretty good actually. Alex Smith isn't going to light it up but Jamal Charles probably will against a defence that has yet to convince me that it can stop the run. I expect more field goals and fewer touchdown and a close game.
|
Covers | 51 |
|
|
I don't quite see how Seattle controls the clock (their bread and butter) or puts many points on the board. I also don't see a "miracle comeback/epic collapse" two games in a row. What I see is Belichick focusing on Lynch, containing Wilson and having him paying out multiple INT's like a nickel slot. As for Brady, this is his last, or at least penultimate, big game and he wants to finish his career like Elway. He's going to will his way to victory with the help of Blount, Gronk and Edleman. Look for the Pats to slay this paper tiger straight up on neutral ground by getting ahead early and making the, fortunate to even be there, 'hawks one-dimensional by half-time.
|
Covers | 336 |
|
|
This isn't Week 1. Both teams have gone through a lot since then. However, the 'hawks look like a championship team looks at this time of year and Aaron Rodgers (although he began to look more like himself in the second half) will still have mobility issues. That makes me think that the Seahawks will win this thing BUT it doesn't necessarily make me think that they'll cover 7 1/2 points (and rising).
The Seahawks have a decent offence but it generally wins by controlling the clock and suffocating the opponent's offence - not conducive to automatically covering big spreads against legitimate opponents (which Carolina wasn't). This will be the 3rd time these two rosters have played each other in Seattle and I expect that it actually gets more challenging for the Seahawks than it does the Packers. In the previous two meetings, the Packers made a lot of bonehead mistakes that served to extend drives that they had otherwise stopped. Don't believe me? Get NFL Rewind and watch them yourself. They also had much weaker O-lines with key personnel missing (such as Brian Bulaga). While they won't shut down the 'hawks offence, the defence has had more bend-but-don't-break in it as of late while their own offence is better than what they fielded previously. Over a TD is living on the edge. |
Covers | 154 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cowboys95: Talk all the smack you want, Dallas is going to whoop that cheese crack behind. You all want to blame on something other than the Cowboys are good. Refs calls went both ways. Deal with it!!!!! I'm dealing with it quite well thanks. Go Pack!
|
Covers | 121 |
|
|
A lot of talk surrounding this game is about how the Cowboys will control the clock because the GB D won't be able to stop DeMarco Murray. But what about Eddy Lacy and James Starks? Will the Cowboys be able to stop them? Detroit couldn't and they had a better front 7. And if they can't, won't that open up Dallas' suspect secondary to a heavy dose of Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Rodgers (the TE, not the QB), Quarless and Adams? Why suddenly is everyone on the Cowboys' bandwagon? I like the over in this game, not because the two teams will each score at least 30 points but, because one of them just might lay down a 40-burger - most likely, the home team.
|
Covers | 121 |
|
|
A full touchdown? Hmmmm. Ravens +7.
|
Covers | 71 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by imaxfli: If the PLAY would be judged objectively you would see Detroit TE slightly grabbing defenders facemask before he was slightly interfered with...should have been a replay...then Detroit would have called another stupid play that wouldn't have gotten the 1st down! Since you want to be objective about it, there's the defensive holding previous to the pass as well as Bryant running out onto the field to confront the officials (although the ref actually has discretion on Bryant).
But frankly if you really want to be objective, it boils down to which team made more plays and the questionable decision to throw a pass on 3rd and less than a yard and then punt on 4th down. But hey, that's football. Perhaps the Detroit defence could have done a better job against Bryant and Williams down the stretch. All this doesn't really matter. It's supposed to be 10 degrees at game time in Green Bay so I very much doubt anyone will be talking about that play this time next week. |
Covers | 121 |
|
|
Seattle isn't exactly a high-scoring offensive juggernaut, Carolina's D is pretty good and the 12th man has no impact on a visiting defence. While I don't expect Cam and friends to do much on offence, the Panthers probably only need 10 points to cover.
|
Covers | 49 |
|
|
Something tells me that the Packers will want to right their ship and prove they can win on the road. This won't be close. Pack all day.
|
Covers | 26 |
|
|
Are the Falcons as good as the Patriots? Because if not then I doubt the Packers will lose at home. Having said that, 12 1/2 points is normally a lot of points. And, Daniels did not practice today, Shields is out with a concussion so the Falcons may be able to run Jackson and take advantage of a drop down in skill set with House. The only question is, can the team that gives up the most yards in a game and fails to get off the field on third down 46% of the time stop Aaron Rodgers and crew. The Cardinals have a good defence but they have nothing that compares to the Pack on offence. Last Sunday was the Falcons' Super Bowl. This week will be a revelation and not in a good way. This is the kind of defence Rodgers loves to play against and I don't see him still playing by the 4th quarter. Anything under two TD's, take the Packers at home.
|
Covers | 64 |
|
|
These two divisional rivals have a habit of playing each other closer than expected. When the Lions aren't being beaten by better teams, they have been playing down to their competition. They beat Miami at home by 4. The week before they edged the lowly Falcons by 1 and the week before that they squeaked by the Saints (again at home) by a point. They haven't won a game by more than 7 points since October 12 against the Vikings. Megatron and Bush are hobbled, and they're missing key personnel on both sides of the ball. Chicago +7.
|
Covers | 38 |
|
|
Gee. Pack at home -3. Well now you know what Vegas thinks. Probably what you think (or should). IMHO, I'd stay away from this game. It can't be predicted. Either team is capable of blowing out the other and both are capable of keeping up with the other. Ignore the season stats. Both teams are playing better in all facets as of late. And, both teams are playing this one down as "just another game" when anyone with a clue knows that this is a possible SB preview and a critical game in the home-field advantage throughout department. I suspect that players on both teams are itching to play their best game. The Pack nearly lost to Minnesota on Sunday and my guess is because too many were thinking about this game. Sit back and enjoy what might just be too exciting for wagering.
|
Covers | 37 |
|
|
The Pack beat them by 32 points in Week 5. Of course, that was with Ponder at QB, not Bridgewater. Not that it matters given Bridgwater has 4 TD's and 6 INT's this year. Rodgers has started every game, only has 3 INT's but often throws for 4 TD's in a game. The real concern for GB is that there's a chance that Matthews might not play (groin) but I don't think that'll matter if Rodgers has enough time to feed his receivers. The over is easy and, while 9.5 is a lot, I'm pretty confident that Bridgewater and Co. won't be able to keep up even if Rodgers can't sucker them with a boatload of hard counts. Pack by 17.
|
Covers | 43 |
|
|
Sigh. Note to self. These two teams have a tendency to sit on their own balls rendering any analysis pointless
|
Covers | 25 |
|
|
I don't see Atlanta scoring very easily with that O-line against that front 7. Stafford and Co. win this one going away.
|
Covers | 25 |
|
|
Now it's GB -7.5 = even better!
|
Covers | 108 |
|
|
The line is 8 so the question is can Rodgers beat whatever the Vikings field, on a short week, at Lambeau, and by more than a 2-pt converted TD? Me thinks so. GB -8.
|
Covers | 108 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.