I think the common knee jerk reaction is to bet against this team. That is, when a team gets shut out and then has to go the road. By all means, the common thought is they are going to get demolished, regardless of who they are playing. There is no doubt teams react differently after being shut out. Some perform well, thus a sense of pride or professionalism. While others succumb to the superior teams they face. Regardless, it is an interesting situation I have always been intrigued by.

History tells us they actually do fairly well, that is in covering the spread.

Since 1989, teams on the road that have been shut out in their previous game are: 43-26-0 ATS (62.3%)

Since 2009, they are 8-2 ATS (80%).

Since 1989, 'such teams' in the NFC conference are 20-9 ATS (68.9%) playing against against a AFC opponent are 5-0 ATS since 1995

NFC divisional games in the 'above situation,' rather not as convincing are still 8-6 ATS, since 1989.


I do like the under in this match up as well (yes we are talking about Sea/STL) Teams that were shut out in their previous game, playing on the road in a divisional game are 14-18 OU since 1989. Not impressive overall, but are 1-5 under since 2003. Previous match ups between the two suggest under as well. The under has came in 4-1-1 in the last 6 and 5-2 under in the last 7 in Seattle. A supporting trend favoring (STL) under is when road dogs of 7 or more points when they had 3+ sacks in each of their last two games is 1-15 under since 2009 and 1-6 under this year. A supporting trend favoring the (SEA) under is 0-10-1 under since 2002 when at home when they had fewer than 10 completions last week. This trend is 0-1 under this year. Likewise, the same situation happened in 2010 when Seattle hosted the Rams. The total was 41.5. They won 16-6!

I personally feel a tease of the Rams (+7) and the under (+7). Bradford's questionable play should be noticed.

Thoughts?