Jibba's Week 3 NFL

[SoCalPat]

Even though I'm a huge Buffalo fan, I know enough about the team that it's simply not explosive enough on offense to cover 5.5/6. I agree on a Jets cover, but not a Jets win.

Have you thought about the total in Phi/SF? Anything in the 40s looks like easy money in that one with the over.

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'd expect Minnesota to lose to the Skins?

[/ QUOTE ]

In week 1, (according to the NFL 3+1 week 1 thread) the Redskins were 4.5pt favorites over Minnesota, so yes, I'd consider that a game they should have lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at it right now, knowing what we know, can we really say that they showed us something in beating the Skins?

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally don't expect much out of the Skins this year, but if that's a garbage win on the road in primetime against a 2nd round playoff team from last year, then hardly anybody in the league has any noteworthy wins at this point.
Dallas had every intangible imaginable going for them last week; they weren't possibly going to lose that game. I mean, do they have to beat a team who beat the Colts in Indy in their only other game?

[Shipwreck]

Eagles and Giants: I know it's called an implosion, but lito sheppard missed the game and he is a good corner. His replacement also was taken off the field, and their coverage was significantly weaker with those losses. No javon kearse, no lito sheppard, no rod hood (supposedly decent?). It doesn't excuse the offensive performance, but the first team defense was not really on the field when the Giants stormed back on the Eagles, nor will it be there for the niners. I really think the eagles/niners game is going to be an obvious edge to the eagles, but at the same time the niners have weapons this year and this game can turn into a shootout easily because of the injuries to Philly. I'm just saying maybe the line isn't that far off, if at all.

[Morphling29]

I agree NO could have one the biggest homefield advantages ever Even so I dont think this game will be close, ATL is simply to dominate for less talented inexperienced defensive players.

[Jibba]

Just for the record, here are my NCAA games for the week:

Notre Dame -3 @ Michigan State. I think this line is way too low for a team ranked #2 last week who is coming off a brutal beating.

Western Mich. -27 @ Temple. I know nothing about these teams other than Temple has lost twice in a row 62-0. Complete credit to this pick goes to Naj.

BC - 7 @ NC State. I know ... I need to lay off the road teams but I just see pretty good value here. NC State has looked pretty bad and I see BC rolling big. I haven't placed this one yet as I haven't 100% convinced myself that it's not just a homer pick.

[MatusowIsBald]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree NO could have one the biggest homefield advantages ever Even so I dont think this game will be close, ATL is simply to dominate for less talented inexperienced defensive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morphling,

I've been having a debate with one of my buddies all week about this very topic. My opinion is that it's much too early to tell who is a great or perhaps even a good team yet, whereas he thinks it's pretty obvious who the "elite" teams are already. I just think every year there are teams that start out slow that end up having good records and vice versa.

I don't deny for a second that the Falcons are a better team and have more talent than the Saints. Actually, the Saints are probably a good example of my point because even though they have started 2-0 I highly doubt they will even be .500 when all is said and done. Having said that, in my opinion we've only seen the Falcons beat up on what so far looks to be a bad TB team and a Carolina team that when all is said and done will probably be at or near the top of the league, but who really has no firepower without Smith in the lineup. I don't mean to diminish a 2 TD win at Carolina though. That is definitely impressive.

I'll be the first to admit that I probably handicap games much different than most. Of course I take into account talent/matchups/trends, etc. But I also believe that intangibles play a HUGE role in the outcome of games (e.g. homefield/revenge factor/nationally televised games,etc.). In no way am I saying this is the "right" way to handicap. I've just found that it has worked well for me over the years.

If talent prevails on Monday then the Falcons will win and cover. If intangible factors win out, then I think the Saints will at least cover and, in my opinion, win outright. I just don't think every game comes down to who is the better team. I wish it did though, it would make this sports betting thing a helluva lot easier. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Good luck with your plays.

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree NO could have one the biggest homefield advantages ever Even so I dont think this game will be close, ATL is simply to dominate for less talented inexperienced defensive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morphling,

I've been having a debate with one of my buddies all week about this very topic. My opinion is that it's much too early to tell who is a great or perhaps even a good team yet, whereas he thinks it's pretty obvious who the "elite" teams are already. I just think every year there are teams that start out slow that end up having good records and vice versa.

I don't deny for a second that the Falcons are a better team and have more talent than the Saints. Actually, the Saints are probably a good example of my point because even though they have started 2-0 I highly doubt they will even be .500 when all is said and done. Having said that, in my opinion we've only seen the Falcons beat up on what so far looks to be a bad TB team and a Carolina team that when all is said and done will probably be at or near the top of the league, but who really has no firepower without Smith in the lineup. I don't mean to diminish a 2 TD win at Carolina though. That is definitely impressive.

I'll be the first to admit that I probably handicap games much different than most. Of course I take into account talent/matchups/trends, etc. But I also believe that intangibles play a HUGE role in the outcome of games (e.g. homefield/revenge factor/nationally televised games,etc.). In no way am I saying this is the "right" way to handicap. I've just found that it has worked well for me over the years.

If talent prevails on Monday then the Falcons will win and cover. If intangible factors win out, then I think the Saints will at least cover and, in my opinion, win outright. I just don't think every game comes down to who is the better team. I wish it did though, it would make this sports betting thing a helluva lot easier. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Good luck with your plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, I agree.

[Jibba]

Just for the sake of completeness, after luckily getting out of yesterday with a split, I took a late flyer on the Seahawks -3.5 for $20. With a decent day so far, I also decided last minute to take NE, since I think they're finally going to stick it to Denver. We'll see how that turns out.

[MacGuyV]

Wow I was really wrong about the Seattle game. Ravens just smelled like a BSP pick; I heard like 93% of people bet on Balt and yet the line didn't move all week, which likely means a few people had a ton of dough on Cleveland?

I really like NE tonight, but that line is higher than I would've expected.

[Jibba]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow I was really wrong about the Seattle game. Ravens just smelled like a BSP pick; I heard like 93% of people bet on Balt and yet the line didn't move all week, which likely means a few people had a ton of dough on Cleveland?

I really like NE tonight, but that line is higher than I would've expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

I felt pretty good about the Seattle game. Just thought Seattle's offense was due to explode. It's not as tame as it's looked the past few weeks and they got a decent boost in Branch.

As for the Pats, I don't feel great about it. I couldn't resist so I'm hoping it's not just a homer pick.