Posted:
#26
^So it's not necessarily too much to give I guess.*
0
MRxKRAZZ NFL week #1
Posted:
#27
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
Since 1989, a underdog of more than 5 points in a divisional game within the NFC East is 98-95 ATS.
So it's not too much to give I guess.
Since 1989, a underdog of more than 5 points in a divisional game within the NFC East is 98-95 ATS.
So it's not too much to give I guess.
Dallas doesn't have much of a homefield advantage. They were 3-5 against the spread last year at home, 3-6 if you count the lions playoff game. 1-2 at home in the division, they did cover against nyg last year winning by ten though, but in years past the giants won in dallas quite a few times. In this series homefield advantage is usually not a factor, most games have been close Would rather bet dallas in ny as a pick or -1 since they have been great on the road recently. Could see dallas winning 35-31 or losing 35-31 just as easily.
0
Posted:
#28
Quote Originally Posted by lordbettington:
Dallas doesn't have much of a homefield advantage. They were 3-5 against the spread last year at home, 3-6 if you count the lions playoff game. 1-2 at home in the division, they did cover against nyg last year winning by ten though, but in years past the giants won in dallas quite a few times. In this series homefield advantage is usually not a factor, most games have been close Would rather bet dallas in ny as a pick or -1 since they have been great on the road recently. Could see dallas winning 35-31 or losing 35-31 just as easily.
I get your point, but what do those recent results have to do with this matchup? It's a completely different situation. In years past, the gap between the Giants and Cowboys was obviously much closer or the Giants were a better team.
In last year's first game, the Cowboys allowed a TD by throwing an INT and letting it return deep into Cowboys territory. This interception happened, because Dez Bryant fell after contact with the legs of Amukamara and Amukamara had the easiest catch of his career. Tony Romo had an almost perfect game. There was simply no pressure by the Giants. It could have been a demolition instead of just a 10-point win.
In game 2, Eli had a very good game, but the Cowboys still outgained the Giants by 1.7 yards per play and Tony Romo posted 9.5 net-YPPA. The Giants will face an improved defense this time, the Cowboys won't-
0
Posted:
#29
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
"Name one area where DAL improved?"
First off, this is going to be a very nice thread with some quality discussions
Offensive line: La'el Collins, a guy who would have been a top-15 pick without the witness interview, and he isn't even a starter. Chaz Green from Florida adds some depth as well. How are the Giants gonna get pressure on Romo? I don't believe JPP will be ready in week one.
CB: Remember, it will be the first year the number six pick of the 2012 draft, Morris Claiborne, will start the season with a full training camp and without an injury (if nothing happens until September). The Cowboys should feel like getting a new guy, a starter. Byron Jones shouldn't have been a first rounder IMO, but due to his freakish athleticism, he brings a new dimension into nickle packages and the CB depth. After pre-season we will know more about his game on the field.
DE: Jeremy Mincey played very good down the stretch in 2014 and the Cowboys just added Randy Gregory and Greg Hardy who will be missing four games. Starting in week 5, the Cowboys will have a very very dangerous front-seven with a DE-rotation of Mincey, Hardy & Gregory. Mincey and Hardy should bring enough pressure from the edges to cause troubles at the soft NYG offensive line. Ereck Flowers will start LT for the injured Beatty, and will have a matchup against Randy Gregory. Gregory already won that matchup in 2014, when Nebraska played Miami.
LB: McClain is suspended, but with the return of Sean Lee, their LB position will be improved come week five.
Sorry for double-post, but sometimes this quote-option gets stupid.
"Name one area where DAL improved?"
First off, this is going to be a very nice thread with some quality discussions
Offensive line: La'el Collins, a guy who would have been a top-15 pick without the witness interview, and he isn't even a starter. Chaz Green from Florida adds some depth as well. How are the Giants gonna get pressure on Romo? I don't believe JPP will be ready in week one.
CB: Remember, it will be the first year the number six pick of the 2012 draft, Morris Claiborne, will start the season with a full training camp and without an injury (if nothing happens until September). The Cowboys should feel like getting a new guy, a starter. Byron Jones shouldn't have been a first rounder IMO, but due to his freakish athleticism, he brings a new dimension into nickle packages and the CB depth. After pre-season we will know more about his game on the field.
DE: Jeremy Mincey played very good down the stretch in 2014 and the Cowboys just added Randy Gregory and Greg Hardy who will be missing four games. Starting in week 5, the Cowboys will have a very very dangerous front-seven with a DE-rotation of Mincey, Hardy & Gregory. Mincey and Hardy should bring enough pressure from the edges to cause troubles at the soft NYG offensive line. Ereck Flowers will start LT for the injured Beatty, and will have a matchup against Randy Gregory. Gregory already won that matchup in 2014, when Nebraska played Miami.
LB: McClain is suspended, but with the return of Sean Lee, their LB position will be improved come week five.
Sorry for double-post, but sometimes this quote-option gets stupid.
Yes, every time I get a chance to go over a game with you, I consider it quality conversation.
Everything you are saying might be exactly how it pans out but as of now the +6 -110 on NYG looks very tempting to me. Sean Lee not doubt have a better football IQ, but I do not think he will bring the physical aspect to the game like the LBs did last year that replaced him. Morris Claiborne at best is avg in my book, until he proves himself this year. Jones might be at one of the safety positions, and counting on any rookies to make an impact to me is asking a lot. Gregory is a beast, but being a rookie is being a rookie, I do not see any Lawrence Taylor in him but he can make some plays possibly starting week 5 or so when the real impact players from Dal all returns. La'el Collins is good, I too believe Dal luck out and got 3 first round talent in this years draft class, but like I mention above, rookies are going to be rookies, even if they blow up like ODB style, it will take a few games to get us to that level.
Im not a fan of NYG or DAL, I am just seeing an edge with the plus 6 points for now, after preseason, I might have more solid info to back my lean, but a lean is a lean, I have switched out and bet the other side many times last year and in years past, but I do see your point on your comments. Being this is the only game in the time slot, we will probably go over this a few more times before kickoff!
0
Posted:
#30
Quote Originally Posted by Slick100:
My initial take to this game is that the Giants can cover at +6, even more so at +7. The Giants are on double revenge heading into McAdoo's second year. The Giant's offense should be more comfortable running McAdoo's west coast shotgun no-huddle offensive system. Giants have a o-line that is being re-shuffled because of the big loss at left-tackle, William Beatty, but it's not that much of a disadvantage. The routes the receivers run are short to intermediate, giving Eli enough time to pass before the rush even gets to him. I still haven't looked deeper into the fundamentals of NYG/DAL match-up, but that's just my initial take.
My initial take to this game is that the Giants can cover at +6, even more so at +7. The Giants are on double revenge heading into McAdoo's second year. The Giant's offense should be more comfortable running McAdoo's west coast shotgun no-huddle offensive system. Giants have a o-line that is being re-shuffled because of the big loss at left-tackle, William Beatty, but it's not that much of a disadvantage. The routes the receivers run are short to intermediate, giving Eli enough time to pass before the rush even gets to him. I still haven't looked deeper into the fundamentals of NYG/DAL match-up, but that's just my initial take.
The Cowboys' o-line/Murray dynamic is a level of production that I think cannot be reproduced or redistributed between McFadden/Randal in 2015. It helps that McFadden runs well in zone-blocking systems. So he should fit right in. Where the problem lies with me is that McFadden/Murrary are simply not as talented as Murray. As long as McFadden/Murray provide enough production to keep the Cowboys pass/run balance offense effective, I think that's all that matters.
There are still two more months and players are dropping like flies.
Yeah, still 9 weeks away, a lot can happen in the mean time, we still have training camp and preseason to flip our world upset down, I was just taking a break form all the fantasy football mock drafts I been doing and jumping early into week #1 looking for good heathy conversation about week #1.
0
Posted:
#31
Quote Originally Posted by porcelainfist:
The only game that could have been lost that was won was the game against the Giants, a game in which Romo stood pat waiting for 8 seconds. I think the big thing you have to ask yourself is, where did the Giants improve?
The only game that could have been lost that was won was the game against the Giants, a game in which Romo stood pat waiting for 8 seconds. I think the big thing you have to ask yourself is, where did the Giants improve?
They lost their left tackle on an already shaky offensive line. You say that the West Coast offense NEGATES the loss of a Left Tackle? That's simply not true.
If you think their first round pick Erick Flowers is going to fill the void, good luck with that, he was beat like a rented mule last year by none other than Cowboys first year DE Randy Gregory.
You probably think I'm some Dallas homer, but that is certainly not the case. You can see my leans for every game's over under and spread here:
https://www.covers.com/postingforum/post01/showmessage.aspx?spt=21&sub=102123238
I think you'll find that my film studies of every team show how dedicated I am to researching these players.
Anyways, it doesn't matter because in my personal life I'm staying away from a 6 point spread. I will be betting the over and betting it huge. But I'm telling you guys, it is not the Cowboys offense that I am worried about blowing my bet for me and not putting up points, it is the Cowboys defense being much better than last year that makes me worry about my bet. I can see myself being heartbroken that the game ends something like 31-17 and I'm left holding the bag.
How about this for a Dallas Cowboys stat... did you know that in the regular season, they were held to 17 or less points in EVERY loss?
And saying that Sean Lee being in the lineup is a negative is... well... absolutely out of left field.
Not a fan of Sean Lee, I can respect his smarts and what ever speed he have, but the LBs that replaced him last year BALL out of their minds, and to me was a key factor in the much improve D Dal had. NYG D to me just can't play any worst, I mean .......cant hey play any worst?? But I think their O will set the tone this year for them, let alone the first game of their season, I am not making a BOLD statement NYG win SU, I think it can happen, but with the points I am simply leaning the Gmen's way this game.
0
Posted:
#34
I have a week one regression play that points to the Giants....basically teams that finished with a worse record than their opponents the previous year do very well in week one.
There's another system I use that is a Giant play.
But, when everyone else has the same opinion it will probably be a pass for me. Right now over 70% of the public are on the Giants, I use >59% as a filter. If the public opinion is swayed below the threshold, it will probably mean that there is either a key injury or the line has dropped.
I admire you guys that can do fundamental analysis and win. I've never been able to do that and make money. I'll certainly be checking out your and Suuma's thread throughout the year.
0
Posted:
#35
Quote Originally Posted by Indigo999:
I have a week one regression play that points to the Giants....basically teams that finished with a worse record than their opponents the previous year do very well in week one.
I have a week one regression play that points to the Giants....basically teams that finished with a worse record than their opponents the previous year do very well in week one.
There's another system I use that is a Giant play.
But, when everyone else has the same opinion it will probably be a pass for me. Right now over 70% of the public are on the Giants, I use >59% as a filter. If the public opinion is swayed below the threshold, it will probably mean that there is either a key injury or the line has dropped.
I admire you guys that can do fundamental analysis and win. I've never been able to do that and make money. I'll certainly be checking out your and Suuma's thread throughout the year.
This isn't even a locked in play for me, its a simple lean 9 weeks away, training camp and pre season will affect this lean, but as of now I am super high on the NYG O.
Suuma to me was one of 4-5 cappers I paid attention to each week, and I will not lie, when our plays match up, I put a few extra unit on the play.
Good luck this year buddy.
0
Posted:
#36
Divisional away dogs playing with double revenge in week 1 are 22-13 against the spread the last 20+ years.
The one Sunday night game played in this situation was a loser as Oakland lost 8-28 to the Chiefs as 7 point dogs.
The Sunday day games went 18-10.
If the away dog with double revenge had a worse record the previous year than their divisional opponent, the ATS record is 19-11, 15-9 on Sunday.
0
Posted:
#38
Looked into another regression method and lo and behold who happened to be the largest regression play week 1 ?
Boys/Gmen of coarse, fade the Boys
It's based on close wins, close wins is not a good indication of success going forward, close wins have proven not to be repeatable a high % of times and the largest difference in close wins is Boys over Gmen by 7.
This fits with expected wins, Boys not as good as their record of 12 wins and now we know why, they got lucky with close wins while the Gmen got very unlucky with close losses and have an expected wins much better than their record.
Two teams at 6, fade Bengals VS Raiders and Fade Zona VS Saints, almost certain winning record week 1 fading those 3 teams.
0
Posted:
#39
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Looked into another regression method and lo and behold who happened to be the largest regression play week 1 ?
Looked into another regression method and lo and behold who happened to be the largest regression play week 1 ?
Boys/Gmen of coarse, fade the Boys
It's based on close wins, close wins is not a good indication of success going forward, close wins have proven not to be repeatable a high % of times and the largest difference in close wins is Boys over Gmen by 7.
This fits with expected wins, Boys not as good as their record of 12 wins and now we know why, they got lucky with close wins while the Gmen got very unlucky with close losses and have an expected wins much better than their record.
Two teams at 6, fade Bengals VS Raiders and Fade Zona VS Saints, almost certain winning record week 1 fading those 3 teams.
So because the Cowboys got the better end in close games while the G-Men didn't, you would simply fade them in week 1?
I don't know how you have done in the past, but with that kind of approach you won't make profit in the long run.
Isn't "winning close games" a matter of quality? Teams with a positive 2+ winning margin in one-score games in 2014:
Broncos, Colts, Packers, Patriots, Cowboys, Lions, Chargers, 49ers, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers
Teams with a negative 2+ winning margin in one-score-games in 2014:
Ravens, Saints, Texans, Giants, Jets, Raiders, Buccaneers, Titans, Falcons, Bears
Do you see any pattern? I made the playoff-teams bold.
Btw. the largest regression play would be Bears vs. Packers. The Packers went 5-0 in one-score games, the Bears went 0-4.
0
Posted:
#40
NO, close games are not repeatable year to year, your looking at it wrong , it's been proven by many web sites.
Close games are more indicative of luck, not skill, blow-out games are more indicative of skill.
Teams that have many close wins one year don't duplicate it the next year on ave.
One reason Dallas does not have expected wins of their actual 12 win season is because they got more luck with close wins.
0
Posted:
#41
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
So because the Cowboys got the better end in close games while the G-Men didn't, you would simply fade them in week 1?
I don't know how you have done in the past, but with that kind of approach you won't make profit in the long run.
Isn't "winning close games" a matter of quality? Teams with a positive 2+ winning margin in one-score games in 2014:
Broncos, Colts, Packers, Patriots, Cowboys, Lions, Chargers, 49ers, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers
Teams with a negative 2+ winning margin in one-score-games in 2014:
Ravens, Saints, Texans, Giants, Jets, Raiders, Buccaneers, Titans, Falcons, Bears
Do you see any pattern? I made the playoff-teams bold.
Btw. the largest regression play would be Bears vs. Packers. The Packers went 5-0 in one-score games, the Bears went 0-4.
So because the Cowboys got the better end in close games while the G-Men didn't, you would simply fade them in week 1?
I don't know how you have done in the past, but with that kind of approach you won't make profit in the long run.
Isn't "winning close games" a matter of quality? Teams with a positive 2+ winning margin in one-score games in 2014:
Broncos, Colts, Packers, Patriots, Cowboys, Lions, Chargers, 49ers, Bengals, Cardinals, Panthers
Teams with a negative 2+ winning margin in one-score-games in 2014:
Ravens, Saints, Texans, Giants, Jets, Raiders, Buccaneers, Titans, Falcons, Bears
Do you see any pattern? I made the playoff-teams bold.
Btw. the largest regression play would be Bears vs. Packers. The Packers went 5-0 in one-score games, the Bears went 0-4.
Ravens the lone team poor in close games to make the playoffs.....2-0 ATS in the playoffs and 1-0 ATS in games involving a team with most wins in close games.
Of the teams with most close wins on your list when not playing another teaqm on the list....Panthers 0-1 ATS, and Pats 1-1 ATS = 1-2 ATS.
A very nice 3-1 ATS record playing the way I mentioned...... and 1-0 ATS best bet with a team with more close wins playing a team with less close wins ............................
0
Posted:
#43
Name the "close games" that were luck last year from the Cowboys?
Week 2 blew out the Titans.
Week 3 won by 3 against the Rams... after FALLING DOWN BY 21. That means that they won by 24 points after the start of the game... or a blowout.
Blew out the Saints.
Won a close one against the Texans that could have gone either way.
Beat the Seahawks by 7, but the Seahawks were gifted 14 points by special teams, one on a blocked punt and one on a fumbled punt. If you want to call that a "close game" I call that a blatant disregard of rea son and circumstance.
beat the Giants by 10.
Lost to the Redskins by 3, which should be considered a "close loss" by your definition, thus negating the Texans win.
Lost to the Cardinals with Brandon Weeden as the QB.
Annhialated the Jaguars.
Beat the Giants on a last minute drive, this could work under your definition of a close game.
lost to the Eagles, because of terrible scheduling that had the Cowboys on a Sunday Night turnaround from New York then have to play a Thursday morning game against a better rested Eagles team.
Then beat the Bears, the Eagles, the Colts, and the Redskins by multiple scores. By my count that is only one "close game" above .500. Now let's revisit the Giants schedule.
destroyed by the lions
destroyed by the Cardinals
beat the texans, beat the Redskins
beat the Falcons
got shutout and blown out by the Eagles
got beaten handily by the Cowboys
Beaten handily by the Colts
beaten handily by the Seahawks
Got beaten by the 9-ers by 6, but did you watch that game? any game where a QB looks like a 9 year old with a box of crayons deserves to count against a team, not for them. Sure, the game was "within a score", but there were only 26 total points in the game., so they lost by 20%.
WEEK 12 in my estimation is their first seriously close loss. Wow. It's cute when people who don't watch football try to handicap it.
Week 13 they got beat by the Jaguars by one. Forget the amount that they got beat by, they got beat by the 2014 Jaguars. One is too much.
they then beat the Titans, Giants, Redskins, and lost to the Eagles.
I find it cute that you think your opinions are based in reason.
0
Posted:
#44
Don't make the mistake of bending and twisting the info to make it fit your perception, close wins have been proven to be very poor indicators of success going forward.
Bending and twisting the info will not change the facts as they have played-out over history.
Instead one should do their homework.
0
Posted:
#45
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Don't make the mistake of bending and twisting the info to make it fit your perception, close wins have been proven to be very poor indicators of success going forward.
Don't make the mistake of bending and twisting the info to make it fit your perception, close wins have been proven to be very poor indicators of success going forward.
Bending and twisting the info will not change the facts as they have played-out over history.
Instead one should do their homework.
Than what's the historic SU & ATS record in week ones? You haven't provided us with any numbers to prove your point that the Giants should be a lean based on your system.
0
Posted:
#46
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Ravens the lone team poor in close games to make the playoffs.....2-0 ATS in the playoffs and 1-0 ATS in games involving a team with most wins in close games.
Of the teams with most close wins on your list when not playing another teaqm on the list....Panthers 0-1 ATS, and Pats 1-1 ATS = 1-2 ATS.
A very nice 3-1 ATS record playing the way I mentioned...... and 1-0 ATS best bet with a team with more close wins playing a team with less close wins ............................
That's ridiculous.
1. The Ravens weren't 2-0 ATS because they lost a few close games during the regular season. They went 2-0 ATS because they matched up brilliantly with the Le'Veon Bell-less Steelers and the Patriots.
2. The Patriots went 2-1 ATS, not 1-1.
3. The Panthers outgained the Seahawks in yardage and the difference was a pick-six by Cam Newton into the Seahawks' end zone, which was returned by Kam Chancellor.
0
Posted:
#47
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Don't make the mistake of bending and twisting the info to make it fit your perception, close wins have been proven to be very poor indicators of success going forward.
Don't make the mistake of bending and twisting the info to make it fit your perception, close wins have been proven to be very poor indicators of success going forward.
Bending and twisting the info will not change the facts as they have played-out over history.
Instead one should do their homework.
I provided you with every game. The fact that you consider a huge comeback by the JAGUARS a POSITIVE for the Giants, yet a HUGE COMEBACK against the RAMS for the Cowboys a negative show that your system is flawed.
You say there's such a huge correlation, but your numbers have little basis in the game of football, a "system" which time and time again will be proven fallacious. The game is played between the lines, not on a stats sheet. Stats can be incredibly useful when looking at things like Percentage of runs ending in bounds when calculating totals, but to blindly say "Close games are not repeatable", then turn a blind eye when I show you the close games are being wildly misrepresented by you is irresponsible handicapping.
I'm going to laugh week one when you say "oh, that Cowboys blowout of the Giants is an outlier to my system."
joker.
0
Posted:
#48
Also, of these "close wins", did you count the times that the team was in field goal range when kneeling? Did you count how many times the team was favored/dogs?
According to your system the Cowboys, winning by seven, kneeling the ball with 40 seconds left inside Seahawk territory in a game that they were 7 point dogs counts as a "close game". Against the spread they won by 14. AND they were in Seahawk territory.
The Rams Game, kneeling with a minute left inside the Rams territory.
I guess the Cowboys should have lost these games to be considered a good play by your bogus hocus p.ocus system.
0
Posted:
#49
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
That's ridiculous.
1. The Ravens weren't 2-0 ATS because they lost a few close games during the regular season. They went 2-0 ATS because they matched up brilliantly with the Le'Veon Bell-less Steelers and the Patriots.
2. The Patriots went 2-1 ATS, not 1-1.
3. The Panthers outgained the Seahawks in yardage and the difference was a pick-six by Cam Newton into the Seahawks' end zone, which was returned by Kam Chancellor.
That's ridiculous.
1. The Ravens weren't 2-0 ATS because they lost a few close games during the regular season. They went 2-0 ATS because they matched up brilliantly with the Le'Veon Bell-less Steelers and the Patriots.
2. The Patriots went 2-1 ATS, not 1-1.
3. The Panthers outgained the Seahawks in yardage and the difference was a pick-six by Cam Newton into the Seahawks' end zone, which was returned by Kam Chancellor.
Pats went 1-1 ATS when not playing a team in the strong close game catacory you listed, one game was VS Colts.
By fading strong teams in close games one went 3-1 ATS in the playoffs, indicating close games are not good indicators going forward.
Boat-loads of research done from many sites and many different ways that all reach the same conclusion, my advice would be do your homework.
0
Posted:
#50
Quote Originally Posted by porcelainfist:
I provided you with every game. The fact that you consider a huge comeback by the JAGUARS a POSITIVE for the Giants, yet a HUGE COMEBACK against the RAMS for the Cowboys a negative show that your system is flawed.
You say there's such a huge correlation, but your numbers have little basis in the game of football, a "system" which time and time again will be proven fallacious. The game is played between the lines, not on a stats sheet. Stats can be incredibly useful when looking at things like Percentage of runs ending in bounds when calculating totals, but to blindly say "Close games are not repeatable", then turn a blind eye when I show you the close games are being wildly misrepresented by you is irresponsible handicapping.
I'm going to laugh week one when you say "oh, that Cowboys blowout of the Giants is an outlier to my system."
joker.
Completely meaningless info, has no correlation to whether close wins is repeatable year after year.
0
Hot Forum Topics
