General Sports Talk
Poll
 | 46 votes (66.66%) | ||
| | 2 votes (2.89%) | ||
| | 5 votes (7.24%) | ||
| | 4 votes (5.79%) | ||
| | 9 votes (13.04%) | ||
| | 2 votes (2.89%) | ||
| | 1 vote (1.44%) |
69 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanSteelers -400 to win their division. Lock or sucker bet?
I sure think a lock is better, but the margin between the two is a bit wide although it can be considered much better than the margin between a bridge Jumper and a sucker bet.
Quote: mcallister3200I think these things are more or less baked into the line nowadays but it’s a very important game for a fairly talented team in Balt and not as meaningful at this point for Pitt beyond homefield race with KC so you would think it should be close most times.
Not as meaningful? It is HUGE for Pittsburgh. Homefield as number one seed also gets you a BYE. A free week off. That being said... I think I like Baltimore +4.5.
Quote: SOOPOONot as meaningful? It is HUGE for Pittsburgh. Homefield as number one seed also gets you a BYE. A free week off. That being said... I think I like Baltimore +4.5.
Not AS meaningful. Not not meaningful. A circumstance of how many above .500 teams there are in AFC now. Looking at the AFC it likely takes 10-6 to make the playoffs this year with all the 7-3 and 6-4 teams, of the 6-4 teams whoever goes 4-2 can probably make it others left out. There’s currently 2 7-3 teams not leading their division and 3-4 6-4 teams. If Baltimore loses they probably have to finish 5-1 to make it. I still think that viewpoint is correct, not having homefield advantage is less meaningful than not making playoffs at all.
Quote: mcallister3200Not AS meaningful. Not not meaningful. A circumstance of how many above .500 teams there are in AFC now. Looking at the AFC it likely takes 10-6 to make the playoffs this year with all the 7-3 and 6-4 teams, of the 6-4 teams whoever goes 4-2 can probably make it others left out. There’s currently 2 7-3 teams not leading their division and 3-4 6-4 teams. If Baltimore loses they probably have to finish 5-1 to make it. I still think that viewpoint is correct, not having homefield advantage is less meaningful than not making playoffs at all.
You are right and I am right. Squeaking in as last playoff team is to me far less important than getting number 1 seed, ESPECIALLY this year. That is if you view the definition of success as winning a super bowl. The Bills getting in two years as a mediocre wildcard to do poorly in the playoffs I do not rate as a success.
Getting the number 1 seed probably gives you around a 50% chance of making the Super Bowl.
By the way.... with the extra wildcard team very good chance in the AFC a 9-7 team makes it.
Quote: SOOPOO
By the way.... with the extra wildcard team very good chance in the AFC a 9-7 team makes it.
Even with the extra wild card would take either Browns or Colts/Titans finishing under .500 rest of way OR none of Miami, Raiders, Ravens finishing better than 3-3 rest of way for 1 9-7 team to make it. Definitely possible but don’t think it’s a “very good” chance. AFC just plain deeper than NFC this season.
As far as a team like Ravens having the chip and chair chance vs missing playoffs being much less important than homefield vs 2 seed agree to disagree, in semi recent memory wildcards of comparable talent in Giants and Packers have made the run to super bowl champions. And then there’s the whole thing about lack of fans in 2020 affecting homefield advantage, tough to say how much of that is variance but there has to be some effect on homefield.
Comparing to the Bills squeezing in last year, well I don’t think it’s quite the same due to QB caliber. Allen just plain was not good yet last year they won in spite of his lack of accuracy and Tyrod Taylor never really was better than average so they never had a real chance compared to a wild card with top 10 quality QB like Rogers/Eli were or Lamar is.
multiple Baltimore Ravens have tested positive ahead of their Thanksgiving night showcase game against the Steelers
their 2 top running backs, Mark Ingram and J.K. Dobbins have tested positive
Gus Edwards is the only available running back who has had any carries this season - Justice Hill, a little used 2019 4th round pick will be the Ravens top backup
the Ravens closed their practice facility on Monday
the NFL just announced that because of this the game has been moved to Sunday night
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30387413/baltimore-ravens-pittsburgh-steelers-moved-sunday-positive-tests
*
Quote: SOOPOONot as meaningful? It is HUGE for Pittsburgh. Homefield as number one seed also gets you a BYE. A free week off. That being said... I think I like Baltimore +4.5.
They bye has seemed to hurt the Steelers as much as help them the past 25 years. I'd take Baltimore except for all the virus effect on them.
Will they just be hanging in a Pittsburgh hotel the next three days? Or did the game get moved before they left Baltimore?
Lions +3 -120 (this line moved against me to -110)
Washington +130
Wash/Boys over 46
Pays a bit better than 7:1.
No Steelers, but a fun parlay on an otherwise muted Thanksgiving.
ETA: correcting lions line
Quote: AZDuffmanThey bye has seemed to hurt the Steelers as much as help them the past 25 years.
no offense intended, but that falls into the category of absolutely meaningless statistics of the kind often cited by sports "authorities" in an attempt to juice up interest, create a buzz and show how "analytical" they are
you'll often hear something like - "team A hasn't won on the road in Green Bay in 17 years"
team A isn't even in Green Bay's Conference so they don't even play them in Green Bay that often and the 2 teams have completely different personnel than they did 17 years ago
it's really almost comical - like the network big shots - men who wear $3,000 suits when they talk about football
*
Quote: lilredroosterno offense intended, but that falls into the category of absolutely meaningless statistics of the kind often cited by sports "authorities" in an attempt to juice up interest, create a buzz and show how "analytical" they are
you'll often hear something like - "team A hasn't won on the road in Green Bay in 17 years"
team A isn't even in Green Bay's Conference so they don't even play them in Green Bay that often and the 2 teams have completely different personnel than they did 17 years ago
it's really almost comical - like the network big shots - men who wear $3,000 suits when they talk about football
*
I am with you, I love seeing the absurd statistics that touts use to try and sell themselves. It is even funnierwith college football which turns over players every three years.
Quote: lilredroosterno offense intended, but that falls into the category of absolutely meaningless statistics of the kind often cited by sports "authorities" in an attempt to juice up interest, create a buzz and show how "analytical" they are
But it is part of the team history. What one must remember is betting sports is not betting roulette. The roulette ball does not remember what it did before. Sports teams do remember.
While few people from 25 years ago are with the team there is a corporate culture that is common. Sort of why card of a certain manufacturer have some of the same traits now as a generation ago. Because the new designers and engineers learned from the old ones over the years.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut it is part of the team history. What one must remember is betting sports is not betting roulette. The roulette ball does not remember what it did before. Sports teams do remember.
While few people from 25 years ago are with the team there is a corporate culture that is common. Sort of why card of a certain manufacturer have some of the same traits now as a generation ago. Because the new designers and engineers learned from the old ones over the years.
sorry, don't buy it - history is not always meaningful
history might tell you that there have been 25% more hurricanes in odd years than even years in the U.S.
2021 coming up is an odd year - but if that's true I wouldn't think we're more likely to have hurricane next year because of that
roulette is all luck, football is not all luck but there can be quite a bit of luck involved - did a ref make a very bad, unchallengeable call at the crucial near end of the game? - just one of many possible examples
I can't think of any reason corporate culture would have anything to do with winning or losing on a bye week - maybe they lighten up on practice too much in between the games? - I guess possible - but a long shot
but each to his own - if you want to use that in your decision making go for it
I'm not trying to tell you not to
*
Quote: lilredroosterno offense intended, but that falls into the category of absolutely meaningless statistics of the kind often cited by sports "authorities" in an attempt to juice up interest, create a buzz and show how "analytical" they are
you'll often hear something like - "team A hasn't won on the road in Green Bay in 17 years"
team A isn't even in Green Bay's Conference so they don't even play them in Green Bay that often and the 2 teams have completely different personnel than they did 17 years ago
it's really almost comical - like the network big shots - men who wear $3,000 suits when they talk about football
*
Agree. There are some stats like that that might have merit.
"road teams in primetime only cover 45% of the time"
West coast teams only cover 44% of the time in 1pm east coast games
(those are made up.... but there 'possibly' could be a rational reason for it...
But..... Giants are 0-6 in last 6 games on dates that are divisible by 4...... not so much....
Quote: lilredroostersorry, don't buy it - history is not always meaningful
history might tell you that there have been 25% more hurricanes in odd years than even years in the U.S.
2021 coming up is an odd year - but if that's true I wouldn't think we're more likely to have hurricane next year because of that
roulette is all luck, football is not all luck but there can be quite a bit of luck involved - did a ref make a very bad, unchallengeable call at the crucial near end of the game? - just one of many possible examples
I can't think of any reason corporate culture would have anything to do with winning or losing on a bye week - maybe they lighten up on practice too much in between the games? - I guess possible - but a long shot
but each to his own - if you want to use that in your decision making go for it
I'm not trying to tell you not to
6 Teams have won over half the Superbowls. Were they lucky or was there something in their corporate culture about winning?
Every now and then weird things like this keep popping up. For me, I will give no benefit to the Steelers having a #1 seed since they blow it most of the time.
sounded great until you realized that when they were losing games, they passed at a much higher clip so his rushing yards were based on them having the lead rather than the other way around.
Quote: AZDuffman6 Teams have won over half the Superbowls. Were they lucky or was there something in their corporate culture about winning?
the Patriots have been to 9 Superbowls with Tom Brady - they've won 6 with him - they haven't won any without him
he was the 199th pick in the 6th round of the NFL draft in 2000
was it a brilliant, winning corporate culture that foresaw greatness in Brady? - he was lightly regarded - or were they just lucky that he turned out to be that great?
I would say they were just lucky - I would guess that Brady did something, such as physical training, which helped him improve so much
without Brady, now, their winning corporate culture is 4-6
also, your point is not so very meaningful because most of those teams are older teams and the younger franchise teams would not have had as much time to compete
also, one of those teams is the Cowboys - and they've sucked or have been mediocre now for a very long time - so what happened to their winning corporate culture?
so your point is not very strong
*
Good teams and good coaches put themselves in a position to get lucky.
Quote: billryanIn the olden days, broadcasters made a big deal of the cowboys being 110-3 or whatever when Tony Dorsett had 100 yards rushing.
sounded great until you realized that when they were losing games, they passed at a much higher clip so his rushing yards were based on them having the lead rather than the other way around.
This is what I call an "after" stat and is useless to betting on. Coaches might care, the important people in football not so much.
Quote: lilredroosterthe Patriots have been to 9 Superbowls with Tom Brady - they've won 6 with him - they haven't won any without him
he was the 199th pick in the 6th round of the NFL draft in 2000
was it a brilliant, winning corporate culture that foresaw greatness in Brady? - he was lightly regarded - or were they just lucky that he turned out to be that great?
I would say they were just lucky - I would guess that Brady did something, such as physical training, which helped him improve so much
without Brady, now, their winning corporate culture is 4-6
also, your point is not so very meaningful because most of those teams are older teams and the younger franchise teams would not have had as much time to compete
also, one of those teams is the Cowboys - and they've sucked or have been mediocre now for a very long time - so what happened to their winning corporate culture?
so your point is not very strong
Use whatever point you like. One year without Brady is not exactly measurable.
I think I'd rather watch the dog show than continue.
Quote: DRichI am with you, I love seeing the absurd statistics that touts use to try and sell themselves. It is even funnierwith college football which turns over players every three years.
I think the most worthless evaluations are right after a draft
People say this team did well or that team did not do well
Nobody knows how well a team drafted till about 5 years down the road
2017 KC struck gold drafting Mahomes but we did not know that for another year.
Buffalo could of had Mahomes, KC used their pick
Bears could have had Mahomes, they drafted Trubisky lol
Quote: AZDuffmanOne year without Brady is not exactly measurable.
how about before Tom Brady
"From their inception in 1960 — back when they were the Boston Patriots of the AFL — to 1984, the team had just four playoff appearances.
During that span, it hoisted just two division crowns and posted a whopping 12 losing campaigns. The Pats did appear in the Super Bowl in 1985, but were drubbed 46-10 by the Chicago Bears.
Unfortunately for the franchise, which relocated to New England in 1971, this set the stage for a miserable nine-year stretch, across which they made the playoffs just once. In fact, their combined record from 1987-1995 was a pitiful 52-91. That included double-digit losses in five consecutive seasons from 1989-1993.
Surprisingly enough, the Patriots enjoyed a nice run in the mid-1990s before Brady and Belichick entered the mix. During that stretch, they made the playoffs four times, which included a Super Bowl loss in 1996. The franchise was still without a title despite being around since the beginning of the Super Bowl era. The Pats hadn’t even won a championship!"
is that measurable?
https://musketfire.com/2020/07/13/patriots-looking-back-bad-franchise-bill-belichick-tom-brady/
Quote: lilredroosterhow about before Tom Brady
"From their inception in 1960 — back when they were the Boston Patriots of the AFL — to 1984, the team had just four playoff appearances.
During that span, it hoisted just two division crowns and posted a whopping 12 losing campaigns. The Pats did appear in the Super Bowl in 1985, but were drubbed 46-10 by the Chicago Bears.
Unfortunately for the franchise, which relocated to New England in 1971, this set the stage for a miserable nine-year stretch, across which they made the playoffs just once. In fact, their combined record from 1987-1995 was a pitiful 52-91. That included double-digit losses in five consecutive seasons from 1989-1993.
Surprisingly enough, the Patriots enjoyed a nice run in the mid-1990s before Brady and Belichick entered the mix. During that stretch, they made the playoffs four times, which included a Super Bowl loss in 1996. The franchise was still without a title despite being around since the beginning of the Super Bowl era. The Pats hadn’t even won a championship!"
is that measurable?
https://musketfire.com/2020/07/13/patriots-looking-back-bad-franchise-bill-belichick-tom-brady/
Is it fair to judge a franchise by its past owners? The Washington franchise has a storied past, and has won several superBowls but is a circus show under its current organization. The Giants played in more Championship games than any other team from 1925 to 1962 and were one of the best franchises in the league, but then spent twenty years hooking up with Basement Bertha, before winning two Big Games in four years. Amazingly, they had the same owner the entire time.
Quote: mcallister3200If allowing Wayne Fontes to waste the or one of the most talented running backs in NFL history’s career is taught us anything, it’s that Detroit gives their head coaches an inordinately long leash.
Bunch of chatter he’s getting fired this week.
Lamar Jackson tested positive for COVID today. Looks like RG-3 on Sunday.
Quote: mcallister3200Football Team grabs a hold of the NFC East lead for the moment as the Alex Smith comeback story continues.
Washington looked very tough in crushing the Boys
but the question remains - did they look very tough because the Boys suck, or are they really tough
I would say they definitely have offensive weapons. in addition to Smith, McLaurin is young but potentially a superstar; the RB Gibson is very tough as is the TE Thomas
they looked to have improved a great deal since Smith took over
defensively, they're ranked 5th if you can believe that - but that is misleading - they make a lot of bad mistakes
we'll get some answers next Sunday against the Steelers - in Pitt - and it probably won't be pretty - Steeler's very tough D is likely to overwhelm Wash's O line - they're averaging 3.4 sacks per game - I'd hate to see Smith go down ugly
Wash has all 4 wins against very weak teams - they beat the Boys twice, the Eagles and the Bengals - not a strong resume
*
Whose resume in the NFC East do you like better?Quote: lilredroosterWashington looked very tough in crushing the Boys
but the question remains - did they look very tough because the Boys suck, or are they really tough
I would say they definitely have offensive weapons. in addition to Smith, McLaurin is young but potentially a superstar; the RB Gibson is very tough as is the TE Thomas
they looked to have improved a great deal since Smith took over
defensively, they're ranked 5th if you can believe that - but that is misleading - they make a lot of bad mistakes
we'll get some answers next Sunday against the Steelers - in Pitt - and it probably won't be pretty - Steeler's very tough D is likely to overwhelm Wash's O line - they're averaging 3.4 sacks per game - I'd hate to see Smith go down ugly
Wash has all 4 wins against very weak teams - they beat the Boys twice, the Eagles and the Bengals - not a strong resume
*
Quote: unJonWhose resume in the NFC East do you like better?
you're right - nobody in the NFC east looks tougher, although the Giants beat them twice
*
Quote: unJonBunch of chatter he’s getting fired this week.
Circa has posted a line of NO -13 rather than pull the line.
The percentage of times the first play of a drive results in a turnover vs. the percentage of plays immediately after a turnover that produces a turnover. In other words, two straight turnovers.
On 12/24/06 Carolina won a game 10-3 where RB DeAngelo Williams played wildcat qb most of the game. They ran the ball 52 times. With Taysom Hill starting for the Saints it’s going to be run heavy for both teams if the game goes. Apparently if the other Denver QB’s had followed proper protocol and been wearing masks when they had exposure they would have been allowed to play having not tested positive.
Quote: SOOPOOI wonder what money line becomes. I’d lay 10-1 without blinking an eye on Saints.
according to vegasinsider.com right now, as I post, DraftKings, Westgate and Circa have moved the spread to 14, or 14.5 and 3 other books are still offering the game at -6
- that must be wrong, not updated
those 3 that moved the line are offering a moneyline of -1200 or -1250
I'm done betting the NFL this season - no more - Covid has caused too much unpredictability - gambling is unpredictable enough without this happening
https://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas/money/
That is ridiculous. Tyson easily won at least 6 rounds.
but her kickoff landed on the 38 yard line and got downed at the 35 - 𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐚𝐫
I have no problem with a woman playing football if they are competitive
if not, that is not right, to me
is this some kind of public relations stunt by Vanderbilt designed to get them more $$$$ due to media attention?
Quote: lilredroosterVanderbilt football got all kinds of publicity because of their female kicker Sarah Fuller - it's a first
but her kickoff landed on the 38 yard line and got downed at the 35 - 𝐰𝐚𝐲, 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐚𝐫
I have no problem with a woman playing football if they are competitive
if not, that is not right, to me
is this some kind of public relations stunt by Vanderbilt designed to get them more $$$$ due to media attention?
Yes.
If you can tell me that they had no male player who could boot it better I would withdraw my objection. If she is the best back up kicker they have the coach needs to be replaced for grossly incompetent recruiting.
But the show must go on.
i think you are implying the integrity of the game and the league in general is in question. I agree. Once early on the NFL allowed games to be postponed because of COVID-19 issues how Denver can be forced to play despite an entire position being out is beyond me.Quote: billryanThe 49ers are homeless, the Ravens seem to have more players out than can suit up and the Broncos have no QB.
But the show must go on.
By the way, if they did not have enough offensive linemen I’d guarantee they wouldn’t play the game in the name of safety! Imagine a QB being destroyed behind a faux offensive line!
How'd you like to be chasing Nawlins for the #1 seed right now?
Meanwhile, my New York Football Giants are in First Place.
Which is the bigger joke?
Quote: billryanSteeler game originally scheduled for Thursday now is on for Tuesday. Why couldn't they give the Broncos a few extra days?
Meanwhile, my New York Football Giants are in First Place.
Which is the bigger joke?
I’d like to understand the official explanation for the first question also.
