#1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle.
#2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion.
#3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one….
Vikes 31-23…. Good luck with your plays.
@vanzack
I’ll make the Vikings case.
#1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle.
#2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion.
#3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one….
I joined covers around 15 years ago....even after 15 years.. this guy vanzack is one of the few solid one as they come. man....times flys ... and covers used to be so much more active then it is now... alot of great cappers back then.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by i_Win_u_Lose:
I joined covers around 15 years ago....even after 15 years.. this guy vanzack is one of the few solid one as they come. man....times flys ... and covers used to be so much more active then it is now... alot of great cappers back then.
Van, you've been smokin all season, and I hesitate to disagree. But I'm struck by the coaching mismatch between Staley of the Chargers and Pederson of the Jags. Staley made the dumbest coaching move this year last week by playing his starters. And that's saying something because I watched Nathaniel Can't Hackett coach the Broncos this year. OTOH Pederson has coached up Lawrence into playing like the top draft choice that he was. I think coaching really matters in the playoffs.
Eh. Staley is a good coach. Questionable decisions last week - but while given the choice I would take Pederson - it isnt like Staley is Hackett either.
I understand what you are saying - but not enough of a factor for me to hang my hat on.
GL
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by brewster:
Van, you've been smokin all season, and I hesitate to disagree. But I'm struck by the coaching mismatch between Staley of the Chargers and Pederson of the Jags. Staley made the dumbest coaching move this year last week by playing his starters. And that's saying something because I watched Nathaniel Can't Hackett coach the Broncos this year. OTOH Pederson has coached up Lawrence into playing like the top draft choice that he was. I think coaching really matters in the playoffs.
Eh. Staley is a good coach. Questionable decisions last week - but while given the choice I would take Pederson - it isnt like Staley is Hackett either.
I understand what you are saying - but not enough of a factor for me to hang my hat on.
Best of luck Van, I'm with you on the Saturday plays. Might sit out the rest this weekend, tho I was leaning Minn - thinking the G's are trending down & out...but going to take another look at it
Who could be trending down more than the Vikings?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by MP2056:
Best of luck Van, I'm with you on the Saturday plays. Might sit out the rest this weekend, tho I was leaning Minn - thinking the G's are trending down & out...but going to take another look at it
Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them.
So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something?
Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls.
My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474:
Cowboys 1-4 on grass. Any concerns with that?
Short answer - no.
Long answer....
Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them.
So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something?
Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls.
My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation.
Van---you are a truly unique guy. You do all the hard, numbers-crunching work and share with the rest of us. I've loitered around your posts for a long time. Year in and year out you are better than the for-sale touts on Covers. Win or lose the rest of the way, thank you.
Thank you.
Plenty of folks here doing the same. Thats why I hang around also.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:
Van---you are a truly unique guy. You do all the hard, numbers-crunching work and share with the rest of us. I've loitered around your posts for a long time. Year in and year out you are better than the for-sale touts on Covers. Win or lose the rest of the way, thank you.
Thank you.
Plenty of folks here doing the same. Thats why I hang around also.
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Van, Whats your thought process on NYG? I am running out of time right now... But will get back to this tomorrow.... Basically - every single stat points to the Giants. Every single narrative points to them also. I cannot make a case to bet the Vikings. Dont misinterpret that as saying the Vikings CANT win or cover. I just cant make the case. Interested to hear if you can. Well, so my analysis is kind of simple: I feel like there is overstated confidence in the NYG. This is a team that is 3-6-1 in their last 10 games (granted their final loss to PHI shouldnt count) but still, this is a mediocre team that had a nice run in the beginning and middle of the season. On the other hand MIN is a very good home team with an 8-1 record and a victory margin of ~5.5 in home games this year. The sole loss at home on the year for MIN was when they got taken apart by DAL, 40-3. But from a situations perspective that 40-3 game was not surprising as it was a classic 'let down' after the emotional win in BUF the week before. Coincidentally, the non-cover, straight up victory of MIN over NYG at home in Week 16 was also immediately after the huge comeback game against IND - my point being that MIN had a bit of a letdown game against NYG and still won. I feel like there wont be a let down this week and a focused MIN team that plays excellent at home, led by a mediocre to decent QB in cousins is going be better than a marginal NYG team on the road led by a pedestrian QB in Jones. My analysis is heavily bolstered by my perception that there is a lot of public support on NYG as road dogs and Im just not seeing the justification.
Eh. Nothing in there for me to make a case with. Nothing personal. Just sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking.
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat:
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Van, Whats your thought process on NYG? I am running out of time right now... But will get back to this tomorrow.... Basically - every single stat points to the Giants. Every single narrative points to them also. I cannot make a case to bet the Vikings. Dont misinterpret that as saying the Vikings CANT win or cover. I just cant make the case. Interested to hear if you can. Well, so my analysis is kind of simple: I feel like there is overstated confidence in the NYG. This is a team that is 3-6-1 in their last 10 games (granted their final loss to PHI shouldnt count) but still, this is a mediocre team that had a nice run in the beginning and middle of the season. On the other hand MIN is a very good home team with an 8-1 record and a victory margin of ~5.5 in home games this year. The sole loss at home on the year for MIN was when they got taken apart by DAL, 40-3. But from a situations perspective that 40-3 game was not surprising as it was a classic 'let down' after the emotional win in BUF the week before. Coincidentally, the non-cover, straight up victory of MIN over NYG at home in Week 16 was also immediately after the huge comeback game against IND - my point being that MIN had a bit of a letdown game against NYG and still won. I feel like there wont be a let down this week and a focused MIN team that plays excellent at home, led by a mediocre to decent QB in cousins is going be better than a marginal NYG team on the road led by a pedestrian QB in Jones. My analysis is heavily bolstered by my perception that there is a lot of public support on NYG as road dogs and Im just not seeing the justification.
Eh. Nothing in there for me to make a case with. Nothing personal. Just sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking.
Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Van, Whats your thought process on NYG? I am running out of time right now... But will get back to this tomorrow.... Basically - every single stat points to the Giants. Every single narrative points to them also. I cannot make a case to bet the Vikings. Dont misinterpret that as saying the Vikings CANT win or cover. I just cant make the case. Interested to hear if you can. Well, so my analysis is kind of simple: I feel like there is overstated confidence in the NYG. This is a team that is 3-6-1 in their last 10 games (granted their final loss to PHI shouldnt count) but still, this is a mediocre team that had a nice run in the beginning and middle of the season. On the other hand MIN is a very good home team with an 8-1 record and a victory margin of ~5.5 in home games this year. The sole loss at home on the year for MIN was when they got taken apart by DAL, 40-3. But from a situations perspective that 40-3 game was not surprising as it was a classic 'let down' after the emotional win in BUF the week before. Coincidentally, the non-cover, straight up victory of MIN over NYG at home in Week 16 was also immediately after the huge comeback game against IND - my point being that MIN had a bit of a letdown game against NYG and still won. I feel like there wont be a let down this week and a focused MIN team that plays excellent at home, led by a mediocre to decent QB in cousins is going be better than a marginal NYG team on the road led by a pedestrian QB in Jones. My analysis is heavily bolstered by my perception that there is a lot of public support on NYG as road dogs and Im just not seeing the justification. Eh. Nothing in there for me to make a case with. Nothing personal. Just sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking.
No worries. Appreciate your thoughts.
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat: Van, Whats your thought process on NYG? I am running out of time right now... But will get back to this tomorrow.... Basically - every single stat points to the Giants. Every single narrative points to them also. I cannot make a case to bet the Vikings. Dont misinterpret that as saying the Vikings CANT win or cover. I just cant make the case. Interested to hear if you can. Well, so my analysis is kind of simple: I feel like there is overstated confidence in the NYG. This is a team that is 3-6-1 in their last 10 games (granted their final loss to PHI shouldnt count) but still, this is a mediocre team that had a nice run in the beginning and middle of the season. On the other hand MIN is a very good home team with an 8-1 record and a victory margin of ~5.5 in home games this year. The sole loss at home on the year for MIN was when they got taken apart by DAL, 40-3. But from a situations perspective that 40-3 game was not surprising as it was a classic 'let down' after the emotional win in BUF the week before. Coincidentally, the non-cover, straight up victory of MIN over NYG at home in Week 16 was also immediately after the huge comeback game against IND - my point being that MIN had a bit of a letdown game against NYG and still won. I feel like there wont be a let down this week and a focused MIN team that plays excellent at home, led by a mediocre to decent QB in cousins is going be better than a marginal NYG team on the road led by a pedestrian QB in Jones. My analysis is heavily bolstered by my perception that there is a lot of public support on NYG as road dogs and Im just not seeing the justification. Eh. Nothing in there for me to make a case with. Nothing personal. Just sounds like a lot of hopeful thinking.
@vanzack I’ll make the Vikings case. #1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle. #2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion. #3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one…. Vikes 31-23…. Good luck with your plays.
Not disagreeing with anything you wrote per se, but your purple is showing.
Quote Originally Posted by MPLS_Juice:
@vanzack I’ll make the Vikings case. #1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle. #2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion. #3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one…. Vikes 31-23…. Good luck with your plays.
Not disagreeing with anything you wrote per se, but your purple is showing.
Which One? Reasoning? All 4 are MUCH stronger teams playing at HOME. Only one that might not win would be Vikes. Giants are overrated. Like someone pointed out here, Giants had their run mid-season. Vikes win at home.
@wizard1183
Which One? Reasoning? All 4 are MUCH stronger teams playing at HOME. Only one that might not win would be Vikes. Giants are overrated. Like someone pointed out here, Giants had their run mid-season. Vikes win at home.
Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474: Cowboys 1-4 on grass. Any concerns with that? Short answer - no. Long answer.... Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them. So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something? Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls. My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation.
I respect your picks but running on grass as a turf team is not a correlation with playing red teams with all due respect. That statement is outrageous. Good luck with Dak and the boys
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474: Cowboys 1-4 on grass. Any concerns with that? Short answer - no. Long answer.... Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them. So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something? Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls. My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation.
I respect your picks but running on grass as a turf team is not a correlation with playing red teams with all due respect. That statement is outrageous. Good luck with Dak and the boys
Cause it’s the nfl. That’s why. It’s never played on paper. Any given Sunday? You never see a crap HS football team beat DiV 1. Ever! Why is that? Cause no one’s betting on it. Otherwise shady things would happen… be prepared for something shady
@Crusher13
Cause it’s the nfl. That’s why. It’s never played on paper. Any given Sunday? You never see a crap HS football team beat DiV 1. Ever! Why is that? Cause no one’s betting on it. Otherwise shady things would happen… be prepared for something shady
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474: Cowboys 1-4 on grass. Any concerns with that? Short answer - no. Long answer.... Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them. So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something? Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls. My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation. I respect your picks but running on grass as a turf team is not a correlation with playing red teams with all due respect. That statement is outrageous. Good luck with Dak and the boys
Explain it to me then. Thats all I am asking.
Does it occur that a grass field means a road game for the Cowboys? Maybe it isnt the turf, but a road / home stat?
Support your local animal shelter. I am on twitter.
Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474:
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Quote Originally Posted by easymoney8474: Cowboys 1-4 on grass. Any concerns with that? Short answer - no. Long answer.... Any historical series of events can be backtested and found to have trends. The question is - is the correlation or causation? Can you make some kind of logical case, or empirical case that this is causation rather than a random series of data points? Keep in mind - out of the thousands of different categories of data points you could look at - you are choosing one that has an outlier series of results - and attaching meaning to them. So for me - is there logic in saying there is a reason that the Cowboys are 1-4 on grass? What if the Cowboys were 1-4 against red teams this season? Would that mean something? Humans look for patterns in randomness. Thats what we are programmed to do. If you see a pattern in something that you can tie to causation - like turnovers, or yards, or points - then that is something to look at. But if there is a simple correlation that you cant tie to causation - IT IS NOISE. Ignore it. Dont get caught up in the masses who dwell on tea leaves and crystal balls. My favorite example of correlation without causation is the following - teams that kneel on the ball >3 times a game win that game 99% of the time. So why not just kneel 3 times on your first drive of the game? Then you have a 99% chance of winning right? Correlation - not causation. I respect your picks but running on grass as a turf team is not a correlation with playing red teams with all due respect. That statement is outrageous. Good luck with Dak and the boys
Explain it to me then. Thats all I am asking.
Does it occur that a grass field means a road game for the Cowboys? Maybe it isnt the turf, but a road / home stat?
Quote Originally Posted by MPLS_Juice: @vanzack I’ll make the Vikings case. #1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle. #2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion. #3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one…. Vikes 31-23…. Good luck with your plays. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote per se, but your purple is showing.
exactly what I was thinking...a real homer...I had to deal with some over the holidays...just can't see the forest from the trees...they think the Vikings are a really good team because how can they not be when they have such a good record...hahaha
Quote Originally Posted by GreasyFat:
Quote Originally Posted by MPLS_Juice: @vanzack I’ll make the Vikings case. #1 The Vikings defensive scheme was incredible soft most of the season. I expect that to change Sunday. The Vikings got a ton of veterans on defense (Smith, Hunter, Zadarius, Peterson, etc. that have taken control of the locker room this week. I expect vikes defense to play their best game of the year and win the turnover battle. #2 The offensive weapons are good enough to score 30+ and I expect McConnell to actually use pass to set up run in this one…. Kirko hit the ground 10+ times last time these 2 teams played. So that is the only issue. You will see some trickery and lots of motion. #3 Home stadium will be unbearable loud for Giants… By 4:30 the average blood alcohol per fan will be .19 …. Vikes veterans have heard the talk about how bad of a 13-4 team they are and there is a lot they will want prove to change the narrative in this one…. Vikes 31-23…. Good luck with your plays. Not disagreeing with anything you wrote per se, but your purple is showing.
exactly what I was thinking...a real homer...I had to deal with some over the holidays...just can't see the forest from the trees...they think the Vikings are a really good team because how can they not be when they have such a good record...hahaha
always great insights and picks. 
Hot Forum Topics
