Does the Injury Angle Ever Work in Betting NFL Games? Because I Don't Think It Does.

[Eddy Munny]

Time and time again we see "key" injuries pop up on the report and bettors rush to the window to fade the affected team, hand over fist, only to watch their ticket go up in smoke as if the injuries never happened.

Take last night, for example... The Vikings defense was alleged to be in dire straits after Linval Joseph, Anthony Barr, and Harrison Smith were all sidelined with injuries.

"Doomsday for the Vikes" they said.

"Carson Palmer will throw for 800 yards" they said.

The line skyrockets to double digits.

And the result? Cards win a squeaker and leave butthurt backers shaking their heads in disbelief, right on cue.

Another example from two Monday nights ago... The poor, lowly, embattled, helpless, hopeless, injury riddled Ravens were supposed to crumble beneath the weight of their own inferiority, and concede the game to the Cleveland Browns.

"How could they win?" they asked.

"They are decimated" the masses declared.

"No Flacco, no Forsett, no Suggs, no Steve Smith... no way" the peanut gallery asserted.

The line, again, skyrockets to Brownies -6 before the game, and, of course, the Ravens win a Monday Night barnburner.

I'm sure there are going to be counterexamples. That's inevitable. But by and large, the injury angle is pure fool's gold. I find this often to be true in the NBA as well.

[VegasPlayer]

This is pro sports. It's often next man up. The talent gap between 1st, 2nd, 3rd string is extremely small. Just because nobody knows your name and you don't start does not necessarily mean you don't have the talent to perform at a high level. You are right. Injuries often have very little effect on outcomes.

[Jowframs]

Absolutely not
Smokescreen

[goldust]

Seems like so many are banged up/injured on these short week games. It's the norm if anything.

[Eddy Munny]

Injuries could be a factor with the Saints this weekend. Mark Ingram, Brandin Cooks, beat up offensive line. I think Cooks being out is the most legit concern for NO. They don't have a guy who can step right in and take the top of the defense like BC does... few teams do. Hitting Cooks with the home run ball was an integral part of the passing game and now it's a bunch of JAG's as targets for Brees.

[canepole]

Agreed. Right up there with with adverse weather conditions angles.

[R.P. McMurphy]

Always loved "star" is out angle in nba myself. Guess it's about same in Nfl depending on just how "key" a guy were talking and how much depth team has behind that spot particular QB obviously. Look at Cowpokes without Romo a prime example. Probably be at the least a .500 squad if he were healthy all year. One example to your point would be Jamal Charles going down and everyone declared them dead. Not like they are a "real" contender but sub .500 with Charles only lost 1 if I'm not mistaking since he went down.

[goldust]

Always loved "star" is out angle in nba myself. Guess it's about same in Nfl depending on just how "key" a guy were talking and how much depth team has behind that spot particular QB obviously. Look at Cowpokes without Romo a prime example. Probably be at the least a .500 squad if he were healthy all year. One example to your point would be Jamal Charles going down and everyone declared them dead. Not like they are a "real" contender but sub .500 with Charles only lost 1 if I'm not mistaking since he went down.

Dallas should be a .500 squad without him. They blew an abundance of games.

[R.P. McMurphy]

Kind of my point Goldust and in many games haven't been able to find end zone. Romo makes all the difference there in how offense is ran/executed, team confidence on and on. With him they probably win several of those. I think at end of day though it's like everything else just comes down to overall talent on starting roster, quality of depth, good coaching. Some teams much better equipped to handle injuries especially over sustained periods or multiple guys than others.

[Eddy Munny]

Yeah, the Romo injury is different because it's spanned the majority of the season. That type of loss over the long term definitely takes a toll. I'm thinking more of the short term, where bettors' think they can get an edge on the book simply by fading the team saddled with injuries, thinking the book has failed to properly compensate for personnel absence in their pointspread.

The Vikings had four injured starters out last night on defense and faced arguably the top offense in football, on the road, during a short week. These were some pretty key guys, mind you, especially Smith at safety. On paper, it didn't look promising for the Vikes at all. On grass, not so bad. Therein lies the discrepancy.

Now if these same players were out for a stretch of five games, for instance, I think we'd start to see the law of diminishing returns take effect. But for one game, the team was able to put a patch on it, so to speak, and put forth a quality effort. This seems to be the case more often than not.

P.S. Brandin Cooks upgraded to probable now and two of my fantasy teams breath a sigh of relief.

[sshz]

Take the S.D. Chargers for instance........this team has become almost a brand new team since the opening of the season due to injuries. Every team faces some injuried players, but in this case, it's ridiculous.

[freestyle raw]

Was the main reason I took Seattle against min last week

I def think it's important.

Another reason I been betting against patriots

[YouHave2outs]

Cooks is going to play

[Eddy Munny]

Was the main reason I took Seattle against min last week

I def think it's important.

Another reason I been betting against patriots

Harrison Smith and Anthony Barr started against Seattle. They sustained their injuries in that game.

[coitus_maximus]

Personally I think Oline injuries are critical. They are the ones that don't seem to get mentioned. Same with starting DB's. Look what happened when Joe Haden was out.