Quote Originally Posted by andarmac99:
You opine that Dallas is going to look ahead to next week's Phil game.
Sorry, 2-3 teams can't afford the luxury of looking ahead. When you are a
talented team with a losing record, every single game on the plate in
front of you commands your full attention.Sure Dallas could be looking ahead, why not? They are a .500 team and those types of teams play down to the level of their competition and look ahead all the time. The fact they haven't had a "feel good home smacking" is probably the one thing that concerns me the most. But do you really think this team is going to approach an 0-5 Rams team that is banged up as all hell the same as they would the Patriots or Eagles?
You say that losing that tough game at NE means there's no coming back
for this Dallas team. I see it just the opposite. First, losing to NE at
NE is no shame. They competed well, and were in the game to the end.That's the conventional wisdom but it often works the other way as those teams give it their all as a dog and come back a little flat as a big fav they know they will beat. It's a long season and this team is just trying to stay healthy. What's the point in going full throttle against a team this bad? I'll have to look it up but home favs that lost as dogs the week before playing a team off a loss are a huge losing proposition with a very big sample size.
You can take my word for it that the Rams have nothing in common with NE. One team is elite and the other complete garbage.Well no kidding. I'm pretty sure that's figured into the 20 turnaround in the spread. FYI - The Cowboys may be looking at the game from the same viewpoint.
(a 21-2 trend in play for winless teams coming off a bye after week
4....ummm, how'd that work out?). I couldn't believe what I was reading
and wondered if any of them had actually seen the Rams play this year.I've been making money off that trend for years. If I had looked at the card last week I'd have been all over it. I'm not sure what's so hard to believe, the Rams should have covered. I saw this on another site: Of the teams that out-gained their opponents and were even or better in
turnovers only 24 of 3468 lost by more than 14 points, which is just
0.7% of the time. In other words if that game plays out the same way again the Rams had a 99.3% chance of covering. There aren't many right side losers but the Rams were one last week. They should have covered and anyone who had Green Bay was very fortunate. There are several more very good trends supporting St. Louis this week and one of which is better than that 21-2 one from last week.
I see your best chance with that pick is to hope for a back door cover
with Dallas looking to run out the clock and get ready for the next
week. That's a pretty slim angle to hang money on though IMO.Why is it a slim angle? The game is 60 minutes, do you expect them to quit and not try to get the backdoor? If the Rams did get a backdoor it only means that Dallas was overinflated and/or the Rams were undervalued which is the reason anyone is going to bet on a game in the first place.
Agree to disagree but GL to you as well. Absolutely.
I did want to mention that I do like stats too. I was very interested in considering the Rams last week (as well as Miami). One thing I don't do is allow my knowledge and love for trends to supplant my own handicapping of the games involved. What I do is consider the trend, then see if it jives with my consideration of the match up as well. If so, good. If not, forget it.
I ask myself which is the better team and compare stats and try to watch games available to me so that I have a working knowledge and feel for the teams. I like to have the better team in the match ups I'm interested in. I also prefer if they are the home team.
I ask myself who will win the game (not
if I think that a team
might cover a spread
while believing that they will lose - 83% of the time whoever wins the game also covers the spread).
After I considered that GB SL game, I concluded it was a complete mismatch and that if ever there was a team to go against laying 15 points it was SL at GB. To tell me that SL should have covered that game because trends indicated a 99.3% cover is laughable (sorry - no disrespect).
One Team:
0-4
on the road
scores 11ppg and gives up 28ppg
facing a team recording 329 ypg passing while they are giving up 225 (bad match up:GB passing vs SL pass defense)
giving up 1 turnover a game
Other Team:
at home
5-0
scores 35 ppg, gives up 22
no unfavorable matchup {even though GB gives up yards passing, SL is an underperformer (less than 200 - only 187 passing ypg) in their passing game}
GETS 7 turnovers a game (so +8 TO differential vs SL)
It's a little simplified for this writing but that was a large part of my consideration of the game and that was more than enough to conclude that big trend was completely worthless for that match up.
Add that to my own observation and realization over the years that GOOD teams off of byes are usually good bets while BAD teams off of byes are more often than not losers... NOT betting SL in that match up was a complete no-brainer.
I went through the same procedure with the Mia Jets game and concluded that the Jets were the pick, not Miami.
In one game, I avoided blindly tagging along with the trend-ers throwing my money away on a loser (been there, done that) and in the other game (then a 21-3 trend with Mia) I went the other way and kicked butt with the Jets. For both of those matchups, I had to discard big, juicy, inviting trends....not taken lightly by me. I had to think for myself, do my own due diligence.
I would say that even though you think that matchup was a 99.3% chance winner and you would play it again and again, I would say that if you give me the same teams and all the circumstances involved which went with my considerations...you play that game again right now and you will have the same result 90% of the time.
You will
not be winning 99.3%, no way, no how. That was a bad pick all considered, not a good pick gone bad.
Anyway, this is FRIENDLY discussion, and I do appreciate your thoughts you shared with me.
Hopefully, this is what makes us all better handicappers as we do along.