Got a trend that supports this play - and you know I love a good trend.
Divisional Road Dogs of less than 7 went 21-4-2 ATS last year, not counting week 1 and week 17 for obvious reasons (which went a combined 0-5 ATS).
I may wait a bit on this line because I have to use Bodog, and Calvin usually teases up favs a 1/2 point or so.
Nice win last night.
Good to see you on the right side on a MNF play.Got a trend that supports this play - and you know I love a good trend.
Divisional Road Dogs of less than 7 went 21-4-2 ATS last year, not counting week 1 and week 17 for obvious reasons (which went a combined 0-5 ATS).
I may wait a bit on this line because I have to use Bodog, and Calvin usually teases up favs a 1/2 point or so.
Nice win last night.
Thanks AJ! Yeah, for whatever reason, despite consistent winning all season long and a great W~L record, I sure had some issues with the MNF games last year. Hopefully that disturbing little trend last year was just a blip on the radar and exclusive to last year only.
Speaking of trends, thanks as always for bringing those golden nuggets that you always seem to find concerning the games at hand. Keep 'em coming buddy!
And not to be overlooked...
NE+1 over NYJ falls into the same category. Any thoughts on this one? I'm thinking that with a week to prepare Cassel, Belichick will have him ready enough for the Jets. The few passes I saw last week looked pretty sharp, and you have to think he had no plans of playing in that game.
The other I'm looking at is DEN+1 over SD. Denver at home is always tough, Cutler looked good and SD looked horrible against Carolina. And Merriman, of course...
The last game I'm looking into is your Pack at -3 @DET.
All these games seem like solid plays to me, but I would be interested in what you thought.
NE+1 over NYJ falls into the same category. Any thoughts on this one? I'm thinking that with a week to prepare Cassel, Belichick will have him ready enough for the Jets. The few passes I saw last week looked pretty sharp, and you have to think he had no plans of playing in that game.
The other I'm looking at is DEN+1 over SD. Denver at home is always tough, Cutler looked good and SD looked horrible against Carolina. And Merriman, of course...
The last game I'm looking into is your Pack at -3 @DET.
All these games seem like solid plays to me, but I would be interested in what you thought.
Great stuff AJ. Sorry I was not able to respond sooner. I was having trouble getting onto the forum. Not sure if it is my PC or if it is the Rx having issues again.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>Anyway, a couple of those games have definitely caught my eye for the same reasons, but I have yet to do any of my normal capping or due diligence. I usually like to look at the numbers and measurable side of the equation first, and then I apply situational analysis. But here are some quick thoughts on the surface:<o
></o><o
></o>The loss of Tom Brady is huge. I believe his win~loss record is something like 101~27 (including playoffs). His efficiency and experience are not possible to replace. However NE is a team loaded with veterans and guys who know how to win. For the most part this is the exact same team that went undefeated last year, so I am sure that NE will find a way to keep moving forward. It may result in a few more losses and some closer games than normal, but with some slight tweaking to the offense (perhaps a larger run ratio and customizing the pass plays to match Cassell’s specific talents) NE will find a way to stay relevant in AFC.<o
></o><o
></o>When looking at the GB game, keep in mind that NFC North divisional games can be tricky at times. Sure GB looked good against MIN and DET looked horrible against ATL, but I would not be shocked to see a major bounce-back from DET at home on Sunday. Or at least I have seen stranger things happen.<o
></o><o
></o>I have some concerns about the health of the Packers right now. Ryan Grant is having some hamstring issues and Brandon Jackson could get a lot of carries as a result. Jackson is serviceable, but he can’t do the things that Grant can do. And few people are talking about the fact that Charles Woodson may have a broken toe.<o
></o><o
></o>GB has a nice defense, but I sometimes have concerns about their ability to defend the pass versus teams that are able to spread the field with multiple weapons and teams that are able to get the ball off quickly or on the roll-out. GB needs to maintain consistent pressure from its front four on defense in order to be successful. I also need to consider the possibility of a let down from Rodgers after his Monday night debut. I personally doubt it will happen, but it needs to be considered to be within the realm of possibilities.<o
></o><o
></o>If GB can get good pressure from the D-line, if Woodson and Grant are healthy, and if Rodgers is throwing lasers again, then this has all the makings of an easy win. But I want to do some more checking on some key factors for this one.<o
></o><o
></o>The DEN game is somewhat similar to the GB game. At first glance DEN looked great last weekend while SD did not look so great. But a team as talented as SD could really bounce back in an effort to avoid a 0~2 start to their season. Or is this just yet another slow and horrible start for SD just like we saw last season?<o
></o><o
></o>Food for thought anyway. It has been a busy week for me, but I am hoping to cap all of the games in the next day or two and when solid conclusions are made, my attention will focus on where the lines are headed and etc. Then it’s just a matter of grabbing the best numbers or waiting for the ones heading in a favorable direction.<o
></o>
<o
Thanks for taking the time, you definitely gave me a few things to consider (especially the health of GB). Didn't know the Grant hamstring issue was that serious, that would make a big difference in exploiting a leaky Detroit run D. After watching Turner run over them last week, I figured Grant would do about the same, or at least soften them up a bit for Rodgers. If you hear anything definite about his condition, do share...
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on NE, solid team full of vets should be able to overcome the loss of Brady. And I do like the trend above favoring NE.
As for Den/SD, I hear what you're saying about the Chargers needing to bounce back, but that performance against Carolina is tough to forget. I can't think of one positive thing Norv could have found in watching the film on that one. And Cutler looked like cool customer in the pocket last week, albeit against a poor Raider secondary.
And, of course, there is a nice trend favoring Denver. Home teams coming off a 20 point plus win last year went 20-7 ATS (loses include the Pack in the conference finals and Indy week 17 against Tenny). So it's pretty strong.
Also, I've got Buf+5.5 on my radar. Apparently, JAX lost 2 guards and a tackle on the O-Line. That can't be good...
Anyway, thanks again for your insight, and if you get a chance to cap any other games I'd be interested to read 'em. GL this week!
JOC!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>Long time, no talk my friend. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for reminding us about the “Shoe Rule”. As I recall, the overall record of that rule was exceptional last season and even produced some of the most unlikely winners.<o
></o><o
></o>For those readers that are unfamiliar with it, the “Shoe Rule” applies to any visiting teams that need to “change their shoes” in order to play on the home team’s field surface (i.e., an outdoor grass team visiting an indoor turf team or an indoor turf team visiting an outdoor grass team). There may be some details or an extra twist to the rule that I am missing, but I am certain that JOC would be more than happy to clarify anything else in regard to applying this rule.<o
></o><o
></o>And not to muddy the waters at all, but I can’t help but wonder if this rule needs to modified at all with respect to the fact that some teams now play on various types of artificial turfs and synthetic grasses. Or more specifically, I wonder if we need to identify the exact surfaces at each stadium and the most popular choices of shoes being worn on each of those surfaces.<o
></o><o
></o>In other words, with the rise in use of simulated grasses and etc., some grass teams may actually no longer be changing their shoes in places that we once considered traditional turf stadiums. This is a great rule and I would hate to see it get watered down with such specifics, but perhaps such specifics merit consideration or could even explain the few times that this rule has not produced the desired result.<o
></o><o
></o>I’d love to hear your thoughts JOC!<o
></o>Sorry AJ, but every time I try to submit my response to your post I get one of those “page can not be displayed” error messages or get completely booted off the forum. Obviously the RX is still having some server issues or something like that. Anyway…<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>There’s no question that the impact of the injuries to the JAX O-Line will be immense. Injuries of that magnitude would devastate just about any team offensively in the NFL. And then there’s also the ripple effect of having your defense on the field longer. Throw in the fact that BUF looked great last weekend and they clearly appear to be on a mission this season, and this line looks very appealing.<o
></o><o
></o>However, the degree to which these injuries affect JAX will be tempered by two factors: the strength of the JAX defense and the JAX home field advantage.<o
></o><o
></o>Although I think home field advantage is largely overblown and over-rated at times (or at least it is often incorrectly accounted for or applied in the wrong situations), the home field advantage for JAX is significant. JAX is a lot like SEA with regard to how differently they play at home as opposed to the road. Compare the defensive points allowed from past seasons (home versus away) for these two teams and you will know what I mean.<o
></o><o
></o>Now do I seriously think that JAX (or any team) can overcome this O-Line tragedy? Not really, but when I cap this game I have to keep an open mind to that fact that if this becomes a low scoring, defensive slug-fest that JAX could possibly find themselves in a position where they are just a score away from tying or leading such a game in the fourth quarter.<o
></o><o
></o>Well, off to cap some games. I will keep you posted on any significant GB injury updates and may post a play or two in the next day or so. But often times my plays get posted the night before or on gameday due to key injury uncertainties, weather checks and other last minute discoveries.<o
></o><o
Well, off to cap some games. I will keep you posted on any significant GB injury updates and may post a play or two in the next day or so. But often times my plays get posted the night before or on gameday due to key injury uncertainties, weather checks and other last minute discoveries.<o
I've been having the same issues with the forum. Hopefully, it won't go down Sunday, again.
Thanks for your input on JAX. I may hold off on the Bills. If you're right about the Jags D being tough at home (and it seems they are), and you combine that with a questionable Buffalo offense - they may end up getting stymied in this one.
Good to see you on NE. Right now I've got DEN+1 and NE+1, was going to take your Pack, but you and JOC have persuaded me otherwise...
And in an effort to donate $ to the book, I just took this 7 game Parlay for $20 (pays $1,579.24)
TEN-1 * GB-3 * BUF+5 * ARZ-6.5 * NE ml * DEN ml * PIT-6
Should be fun.
JOC!<o
<o
For those readers that are unfamiliar with it, the “Shoe Rule” applies to any visiting teams that need to “change their shoes” in order to play on the home team’s field surface (i.e., an outdoor grass team visiting an indoor turf team or an indoor turf team visiting an outdoor grass team). There may be some details or an extra twist to the rule that I am missing, but I am certain that JOC would be more than happy to clarify anything else in regard to applying this rule.<o
<o
<o
Just checked my notes from last year.
Home team needs to be a dog of 2.5 or more, as well.
Thanks for your input on JAX. I may hold off on the Bills. If you're right about the Jags D being tough at home (and it seems they are), and you combine that with a questionable Buffalo offense - they may end up getting stymied in this one.
Good to see you on NE. Right now I've got DEN+1 and NE+1, was going to take your Pack, but you and JOC have persuaded me otherwise...
Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE to hammer the BUF ML on this one. I really like this team and those injuries to JAX are devastating. But there's times when recent past history tells you to walk away from betting a side in certain games, or at the very least be very cautious about them. Yeah, it can make you want to kick yourself when the team you liked wins, but if you learn to avoid enough of these types of games you will be better off in the long run.
The same thing applies to the GB game. I've been trying to tell people that Rodgers is the real deal and I am excited about this team. Even better, I like the fact that they entered this season a little bit under-rated. But this game just intuitively concerns me.
I will feel really bad if GB steam-rolls DET and you feel like you missed out on some easy $$. But for me, there's all these little red flags out there right now (some injuries that will be game-time-decisions, the Shoe Rule, a potential DET bounce-back, the possibility of a Rodgers let-down, wacky NFC north history, etc). Who knows, maybe something will present itself just before game time that makes GB look a lot safer. We won't know about Grant or Woodson until Sunday (unless I catch wind of how Saturday's practice goes ~ which I will be trying to do).
In either case, don't worry if we can't bet on GB this weekend. We will make a lot of $$ on GB this season. I am hoping that there will be at least 8-to-10 GB games or so this season that I have a strong opinion about.
