terrible offense vs. terrible defense?

[polson22]

i've wanted to ask this question and hear people's experiences.

what happens when terrible O meets terrible D? high or low scoring? does it matter whether the really terrible part is run or pass or both??

i could ask about great O vs. great D, but i think we notice those games every week. they're on national TV often.

trying to model this simply for ATS and Over/Under. or just some insights?? my thought was that incompetent offenses can't do anything, but i'm starting to think that's true for pass, but the incompetent offense has the advantage for running i.e. tackling takes alot more talent than running i.e. tailback doesn't have to do much vs. terrible D.

anyway thanks in advance!!

[daneblazer]

depends on how bad is bad. If they are "equally as bad" it seems like the terrible offense gets the upper hand. Look at the Browns/Lions game last week and several of the North Texas games.

[HawaiiFan]

I'd think it would also be for the O. A terrible D will make the offense looks decent I would think and that would equal some points or even many points depending on how bad the D is. If anything, it would lean toward the over in a game.

[BigdaddyQH]

The advantage goes to the offense because they have some idea of what they are doing. The defense can only react to what the offense does. You do have to make sure that each is equally as poor.

[Harry N. Lloyd]

Last week's North Texas vs. Army game fits this mold. Going into the game, North Texas had the nation's worst-ranked scoring defense, giving up an average of 38 ppg (mainly against piss-poor teams.) Army came in with the nation's 119th (second to last) scoring offense, averaging a mere 16 ppg and only 260 total ypg. Bad O against a bad D. The total for the game opened at 50-, slightly on the high side for a college game.
I sniffed around, thinking about the under, feeling pretty certain that Army couldn't score many points on a good high school team. Then late in the week, the total jumped up to 52-. Like a lot of other fools often do, I thought "Hmmm. Smart money coming in on the over. I better back off."
Final score, 17-13. In retrospect, one of the easiest totals plays of the week. I don't know if I learned much about playing bad offenses against bad defenses, but I did learn (and I re-learn it every week) that the notions of 'sharps' and 'smart money' and all that crap is a bunch of bullshit. The only sharps I know are the guys who quit gambling years ago.

[SpartyPt11]

Example E. Michigan at Toledo this year

[Harry N. Lloyd]

It's easy to tell you what happened last week, and why such-and-such team was a good bet. It's a bit more difficult to do so in advance. Like last week's North Texas/Army game, this week's card also features a team with a pathetic offense (Akron, 103rd in scoring offense, 18.5 ppg) against a team with a woeful defense (Eastern Michigan, 119th in scoring defense, 39 ppg allowed.) Akron is a 16- favorite, the total set at 50. This is a pretty big impost and high total for an Akron team that stands 2-9 and hasn't scored more than 28 points in any game this year.
The glaring weakness in Eastern Michigan's defense are the run stoppers, as they're allowing a whopping 6.4 ypc. I don't think the Zips can fully capitalize on this because they're only averaging 111 ypg on the ground. That's not much. Akron is better through the air. EMU has a reasonably good pass defense.
On a day when the weatherman is calling for rain, 38 degree temps, and a 16 mph wind, my money says that this game belongs to the (pathetic) dog and the UNDER.

[polson22]

Thanks guys. that's the type of responses/analysis i was hoping for.

FWIW, i may do an analysis of the subject and post the conclusions here.