NFL undefeated season prop

[Thremp]

Post Oak,

Those aren't worst case post season numbers. They also don't factor in any injury chances. And you're completely wrong about the resting the starters. Please go back through the recent years of teams who've clinched HFA or look for coach's statements on the issue. I'm not a fan of "angles" but to assume that they'll play 2-3 quarters is asinine.

If you'd like to bet on that, I'll take action on a undefeated teams who've clinched HFA playing their starting QB for greater than 1/2 the game's offensive snaps averaged over all games played that fit the criteria. That should give you a sizable edge considering you think they'll play 2-3 quarters.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
at 14-0, if #1 seed is a lock, I will happily bet that major NWE players skip more than 1 Q of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate you.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
when NWE has nothing to play for.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a 15-0 team has nothing to play for?

A 14-1 team has nothing to play for. A 15-0 team will be playing to set the new NFL record for an undefeated season (yes, I know the Dolphins were 14-0).

I don't disgaree that we can see benchings in Week 16 and 17 (especially 17, which is on the road). That is to say, a few guys might only play 3 quarters or so over the last 2 weeks.

Now look at the numbers I provided. Is betting on this prop hoping the Pats will be benching starters really worth it?

I can see betting this prop if you think the available lines are bad (which you allude to), but the whole "starters will be benched" angle is pure square-think.

And you would be better off just betting on NYG -7 in Week 17 anyway.

[Thremp]

PO,

Either take my money or admit you're just being ridiculous. Or continue whatever absurd positions you continue to believe.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when NWE has nothing to play for.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disgaree that we can see benchings in Week 16 and 17 (especially 17, which is on the road). That is to say, a few guys might only play 3 quarters or so over the last 2 weeks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Brady, Moss, Samuel, Seymour, Harrison, Bruschi, Stall, Watson, Maroney may only play 1st half week 15 and 1st Q week 16. We seem to agree on this.

Obvs if you wait until week 15, you do not profit if they lose to Indy, Balt, Wash, Pitt, or PHL before then. You've surrendered +EV.
The prop can be +EV now, and ML be +EV then. It's not either/or proposition.

Also, I don't think a healthy PHL team is only 15% to beat NWE. JMHO, and I admit they may not get a fully healthy Lito and B-Dawk back. But supposedly they will, soon.

[NajdorfDefense]

There have been 6 undefeated teams in NFL history. Dolphins won the most games. Being #7 is meh, fine, nice but meh. Because the media talks about it doesn't mean Belicheat cares even a tad.

I think Belicheat is FAR more concerned with becoming only 2nd coach to win 4 SBs. And, let's not forget, he hasn't even gotten to the SB without Weis and Crennel. You know that burns him inside, so why risk major injuries at NYG, on a bad playing surface, in bad weather, etc. All it takes is one free-agent rookie who wants to make a 'name' for himself by rolling up on Tom like Wilfork did to Losman. You know some guys would do it, too. Why take the risk?

I'll take the Under on Brady plays combined 4.5 Qs last 2 games if they have clinched #1 seed.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
And you're completely wrong about the resting the starters.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do know there are 22 starters, right? OK, just checking... because benching a QB is not equivalent to benching all of your starters.

[ QUOTE ]

Please go back through the recent years of teams who've clinched HFA


[/ QUOTE ]

Alas, there are no 14-0 or 15-0 teams to compare them to..

[ QUOTE ]

I'll take action on a undefeated teams who've clinched HFA playing their starting QB for greater than 1/2 the game's offensive snaps averaged over all games played that fit the criteria. That should give you a sizable edge considering you think they'll play 2-3 quarters.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2005 Colts were 13-0 and had already clinched home field throughout the playoffs. Peyton Manning started their 14th game. The Colts were down 13-0 at the half (all of which Manning had played), and he still came out for the third quarter. In fact, he was 26-45 in passing.

The 1998 Broncos were 13-0, and had clinched home field throughout the playoffs. Elway (who would retire after the year), was 19-36 in their 14th game, which they lost.

So I'm not sure what in the world you could possibly be referring to, but please remember that we are talking about undefeated teams. In other words, history has shown that a 13-0 team (which has clinched HFA) is not gonna sit anyone.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Either take my money or admit you're just being ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's make the bet.

Here's the criteria:

- undefeated teams
- 16 game schedule
- in the last 20 years
- weeks 15-17

How much do you want to bet?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take the Under on Brady plays combined 4.5 Qs last 2 games if they have clinched #1 seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's make the bet.

The only things I want to add:

1. NE must be undefeated
2. unlike Thremp, you are only talking about the last two weeks, and 4.5 is way higher than he would set the bar. Let's put it at 3.5Qs.

How much should we bet?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either take my money or admit you're just being ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's make the bet.

Here's the criteria:

- undefeated teams
- 16 game schedule
- in the last 20 years
- weeks 15-17

How much do you want to bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ you.

Keep muddying the waters. I think this thread is becoming pretty clear who's on the correct side of the "resting starters" angle and its implications on the games.