NFL Week 2

Valuist

EOG Master
Bears minus 3 over Cincinnati?? Overreaction, anyone? As they say in racing, this is a big class dropdown. The Rams are a Grade 3 stakes horse and the Bengals are about a $7500-10k claimer. And I'm bullish on Burrow. We will see on the injury front who will be playing LT for the Bears. The Bears secondary made several big mistakes Sunday night. I suspect the weaker O-line of the Bengals will allow the Bears pass rush to get to Burrow several times. Nice win by the Bengals but they played 5 full quarters of football.....and now go on the road for a non-divisional game. Let's not forget, the Bengals are 1-19-1 in their last 21 road games. I think this line should be Chicago - 4 1/2.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
Peters, who started the game last night, has a quad injury, but was listed as questionable to return, which he didn't. But this isn't a knee, ankle or even groin or hammy. Have to think reaasonable chance he plays next week.
 
My early leans from last night's Pinnacle lines were:

New Orleans -2.5 -120 (now -145)
Buffalo -3
SF -3
KC -2.5 -107 (now -111)


"Let's not forget, the Bengals are 1-19-1 in their last 21 road games." A useless stat like those that touts often refer to (or base their 70%, 80% etc winning systems on?) to deceive the naïve into buying their services? What does the team this year have to do with the Bengals from an alleged 1-19-1 run of year's past? Were their opponents in every one of those games the Bears of today? Is the record ML or ATS? If the former how is it relevant to the consideration of an ATS bet at -3 on the Bears this coming Sunday. If the latter what makes you think that isn't just due to nothing but bad luck, like someone picking red on a roulette table & getting a long run of mostly blacks. It would be silly to bet on black on that basis in the following spins and expect it will give you an advantage on a minus EV game. Also why cherry pick the last 21 games? Because it's the worst possible result? Why not cherry pick instead the last 5, 10, 30, 50, 100, 200 games?
 
Last edited:

Valuist

EOG Master
My early leans from last night's Pinnacle lines were:

New Orleans -2.5 -120 (now -145)
Buffalo -3
SF -3
KC -2.5 -107 (now -111)


"Let's not forget, the Bengals are 1-19-1 in their last 21 road games." A useless stat like those that touts often refer to (or base their 70%, 80% etc winning systems on?) to deceive the naïve into buying their services? What does the team this year have to do with the Bengals from an alleged 1-19-1 run of year's past? Were their opponents in every one of those games the Bears of today? Is the record ML or ATS? If the former how is it relevant to the consideration of an ATS bet at -3 on the Bears this coming Sunday. If the latter what makes you think that isn't just due to nothing but bad luck, like someone picking red on a roulette table & getting a long run of mostly blacks. It would be silly to bet on black on that basis in the following spins and expect it will give you an advantage on a minus EV game.

It is most of the same players and it is SU. Yes, Burrow wasn't there in 2019 but he was there for some of the losses. The coach has to prove he can win on the road, along with the players. To completely dismiss this RECENT horrific road performance would be ignorant. And playing 75 minutes of football in one's previous game is never a positive. IMO, the line should be at Chicago -4 1/2. Classic week 2 overreaction.

You criticize touts, which I have to problem with, yet you are always talking about some Sherwood guy. What gives there?
 
Love the Ravens next week, but let's see how they play tonight. Chiefs are seriously overrated. Ravens are a tough matchup for the Chiefs D system.
 
"Let's not forget, the Bengals are 1-19-1 in their last 21 road games." A useless stat like those that touts often refer to (or base their 70%, 80% etc winning systems on?) to deceive the naïve into buying their services? What does the team this year have to do with the Bengals from an alleged 1-19-1 run of year's past? Were their opponents in every one of those games the Bears of today? Is the record ML or ATS? If the former how is it relevant to the consideration of an ATS bet at -3 on the Bears this coming Sunday. If the latter what makes you think that isn't just due to nothing but bad luck, like someone picking red on a roulette table & getting a long run of mostly blacks. It would be silly to bet on black on that basis in the following spins and expect it will give you an advantage on a minus EV game. Also why cherry pick the last 21 games? Because it's the worst possible result? Why not cherry pick instead the last 5, 10, 30, 50, 100, 200 games?

It is most of the same players

Why cherry pick an alleged past 21 games record (1-19-1) of about 2.5 seasons. Why not go the full 3 seasons? Or extend to 4 or 5 seasons? Or limit it to 1 or 2 seasons? Or limit it just to games where Burrows played.


and it is SU.

Yet, again, your argument is for an ATS pick of -3, not a ML pick on the Bears. So why didn't you instead provide ATS records for Cincinnati on the road for the last 2.5 seasons? That would've been comparing apples with apples. Instead you applied an apples stat to oranges.




Yes, Burrow wasn't there in 2019 but he was there for some of the losses.


What's the record with Burrows? Is it enough games to be of any significance? Is he not better than he was a year ago?

As arguably the most important position on a team, & a significant upgrade on his recent predecessors in recent years, using your 1-19-1 stat that mostly omits his presence could arguably be considered rather meaningless. Like substituting Dalton for Rodgers on GB last year, would GB have done as well?

The coach has to prove he can win on the road, along with the players.

Of course they can win on the road. If they've been losing there it may have just been random bad luck, like someone betting black the last 21 times on the roulette table while it landed on red over 90% of the time. Sooner or later that 90% will correct itself as it regresses back to 50% (zero & double zero results excluded). And of course being without Burrows almost all of those 21 times is a huge factor. As well as the fact the alleged 1-19-1 run is misleading since it is ML not the ATS you're pushing for.


To completely dismiss this RECENT horrific road performance would be ignorant.

Why? I see no reason to put any stock in it whatsoever. Consider the regression to the norm theory i stated above.

I posted a similarly high percentage stat re Super Bowl winners covering the first game of the year over the past 2 some decades. Did you put stock in that too? How did that work out for TB -6.5 (to -9) vs the Cowgirls?

And playing 75 minutes of football in one's previous game is never a positive. IMO, the line should be at Chicago -4 1/2. Classic week 2 overreaction.

This is another matter entirely. Similarly one could point to the Ravens being on a short week relative to the Chiefs they play next week. And that the Chiefs have had the Ravens number recently, including last season in a game with much the same rosters. Further, of course, the Ravens could suffer some serious injury tonight.

You criticize touts, which I have to problem with, yet you are always talking about some Sherwood guy. What gives there?

Sherwood isn't a tout. Many times he has railed against them. Even recently i posted this thread re his thoughts on the subject:

 
Last edited:

FairWarning

Bells Beer Connoisseur
Two teams that defy regression are the Lions and the Bengals.

X-Files - Speaking of Baltimore, they are playing rare B2B monday night games to start the season. The short week may affect the Raiders though - they are playing a physical game tonight, then going to Pitt to play the early game sunday.
 
Two teams that defy regression are the Lions and the Bengals.

2-0 ATS in Week 1.


X-Files - Speaking of Baltimore, they are playing rare B2B monday night games to start the season. The short week may affect the Raiders though - they are playing a physical game tonight, then going to Pitt to play the early game sunday.

Week 1 to Week 2 is a short week for the Chiefs relative to the Ravens. Chiefs played yesterday afternoon PST, Ravens playing tonight now.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
Xfiles,

You ask why not provide ATS records for the Bengals for the last xx number of games. What is the players' job? It's to win games, not cover spreads. The Bengals actually have a decent ATS road record the last 3 years. But in what context? They were getting double digits in most of those games. A whole different story this week, getting 3, or in some places, even 2 1/2.

As for the 1-19-1 record being "random", since it's their last 21 road games I don't see anything random about it. Many teams and/or players have home/road dichotemies. Baseball, football, bball, horse racing. It doesn't matter. Recent form matters. I know some math geeks believe that players are all robots with skill sets that are constant, and nothing could be further from the truth. Physically they are all changing from day to day.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
I am not betting yet until the 3rd week to adjust the numbers. I do lean miami, eagles and saints this week. I was shocked the fins win total for the year was a bit low.

9 1/2 was low? I know there were 9s out there but I went under at 9 1/2. They were fortunate in week 1.
 

FairWarning

Bells Beer Connoisseur
For those loving the Bears this week, they're reported as down to -1.5 -110 at SIA now, -2 -112 at Pinnacle & -2.5 at most books:

Don’t know if I love the Bears, but I think it’s a total overreaction. If Dalton can have a good week, this is the week.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
Don’t know if I love the Bears, but I think it’s a total overreaction. If Dalton can have a good week, this is the week.

I agree. Dalton certainly will have plenty of motivation. Not sure all the love for Cincinnati. They didn't just play OT, but the full entire OT in 84 degree heat. I can see both the Vikings and Bengals D being a bit over the top this week.
 
Young guys in only the 2nd week of the season are going to be significantly more tired due a game a week ago they played a few more minutes than their opponents? I don't think so. More likely they'll be energized due to getting the W while their opponents got their asses handed to them.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
If the Bengal offensive line holds up beara are in trouble

Mostly the same O-line as last year but they brought in Reiff at OT from Minnesota. One change in the D-line was bringing in pass rusher Hendrickson from New Orleans. They had the lowest sack total of any team last year so they should be a bit better w/Hendrickson, but it would be hard to be worse than 2020 on the D-line. Only 4 teams allowed more sacks than the Bengals last year. We will see if Reiff can make any measurable improvement.

The whole world is seemingly on Cincinnati, so we will go contrarian here.
 

Valuist

EOG Master
Young guys in only the 2nd week of the season are going to be significantly more tired due a game a week ago they played a few more minutes than their opponents? I don't think so. More likely they'll be energized due to getting the W while their opponents got their asses handed to them.

LOL. There's a reason why teams only play one game in a week. This isn't baseball or the NBA. It's 10x more draining. Yes, I do believe playing 1.25 games is an obstacle when your opponent played one.....and arguably only 3 quarters for the Bears.

Are you still in your basement cowering in fear from Covid?
 
LOL. There's a reason why teams only play one game in a week.

Every year there are games where teams play on Sunday & then again a few days later on Thursday.


This isn't baseball or the NBA. It's 10x more draining.

MLB players don't sweat much, but NBA players do. How is the NFL 10X more draining? Players play 6 seconds at a time, then get a much longer break before the next 6 seconds of action. Then they're soon off of the field resting while the offense or defense or special teams is on instead.

Yes, I do believe playing 1.25 games is an obstacle when your opponent played one.....and arguably only 3 quarters for the Bears.

Are you still in your basement cowering in fear from Covid?

I'm still debating travelling around the world again whenever things open up.
 
Last edited:

kane

EOG master
The Under looks good the NE/Jet game. I played Under in last week's game between the Pats and Fins, reasoning was, two young QB's, including one making his first start, going up against two elite defensive minds in Hoodie and Flores, a division game, meaning both teams knew each other very well, and with neither team wanting to make a mistake I figured both offenses would be somewhat conservative, with each coach waiting for the other team to make the big mistake, eventually NE was the team to make that big mistake and it cost them the game. This one feels similar, the Jets don't have as good a defense as Miami, but Saleh is a great defensive mind, and now that he's got some tape on Mac Jones, granted a one game sample, but I expect Saleh to come up with a good enough scheme to limit the Pat's offense, on the other side you have Hoodie scheming against the rookie Zach Wilson, I have a hard time believing the Jets will be able to get much done offensively, he didn't do much last week against the Panthers, so I'm not expecting many points from him in this one, I think the Pats win a low scoring game, 24-16 looks about right
 
Top