NFL Week 8 early betting look: Will the Jaguars' spiral continue?

Preston Johnson
ESPN PLUS ($ MATERIAL)


The word is that Week 7 of the NFL season was the worst one yet for sportsbooks. Eight favorites won games (so parlays and teasers were all cashing), and six of the eight covered against the spread on top of that. Of the underdogs that did cover, four won their games outright (Panthers, Texans, Saints, Redskins).


So what does all of this mean? Absolutely nothing, at least when it comes to looking ahead to Week 8. The books are going to win a good portion of the time, but they are going to have losing weeks too. Don't get caught up in false "the favorites are hot" or "parlay and tease all the games you like" narratives.


Let's dive into some of the other details that stuck out to me in Week 7 -- and we'll look at how we can apply them to our betting process for Week 8.
Buy/Sell

Can I just sell the Jaguars again? We sensed this coming last week when I broke down what I ultimately saw as the main reason for Jacksonville's struggles. Coach Doug Marrone spoke openly after their home loss to the Texans about their issues with turnovers (he mentioned it 17 times, I counted) and explained why he benched Blake Bortles. Marrone actually said every starting spot is open headed into Week 8. It's a mess in Jacksonville. This is a reminder to stay away from their games until we see some evidence of change.


I don't have a specific team to buy on this week, but it is worth mentioning one more time if you missed it that I did take the Falcons at +7000 to win the Super Bowl last week in the column that includes an explanation and explains the value.
Early line moves for Week 8

Move I agree with: The Green Packers opened +10 in Los Angeles against the Rams this upcoming Sunday, but it only lasted for about four minutes. The line has since been pushed down to as low as +8.5 in some places -- which is on the right track -- but still too high compared to my projection of Packers +5.8. Green Bay had their bye week in Week 7 and that is certainly accounted for as well (worth a little over one point to the spread). There are a few +9.5s around still that would still warrant a bet, but I am in no rush to grab them for the time being. The prospects of a +10 reappearing later this week are intriguing, and the difference between a +9 or even a +8.5 if I wind up having to take Green Bay at a slightly lower number than +9.5 is an OK trade-off.


To explain in more detail, NFL games will land at nine points approximately 1.7 percent of the time (and a smaller percentage of that would be Green Bay winning by nine anyway). NFL games landing at 10, however, occurs almost six percent of the time -- and the majority of that would be expected to be the Rams by 10, since they are the considerable favorite. The potential value in waiting for a +10 to pop back up exceeds the advantage of taking +9 instead of +9.5 in this instance. Keep a close eye on it, as I will be doing the same.
Move I disagree with: This is probably the ugliest buy-low spot on the card this week, but, if you have it in you to take a shot, my number disagrees pretty heavily on the move against the Raiders this week (even after the Amari Cooper trade). What was Cooper really providing for Oakland anyway? I think the Raiders should be a short favorite in this game, and the move from +1.5 to +3 puts into perspective just how bad the market -- at least for the time being -- perceives the situation in Oakland to be. I imagine some of it has to do with the Colts 37-5 smackdown over the Bills this past Sunday as well, but that final score couldn't be much further from the truth. That leads us to...


Behind the box score: Understanding the whole story

Team A: 303 yards, 26:41 time of possession, 5 points
Team B: 376 yards, 33:19 time of possession, 37 points


It is fair to assume that Team B in this scenario is going to win the game more often than Team A. However, winning the game by a margin of 32 is misleading, to say the least. The Colts forced five turnovers against the Bills and converted seven of 13 (well above league average) third down attempts versus just two of nine (well below league average) successful third down attempts for Buffalo.


I know I poked fun at the Bills last week and the fact they were starting Derek Anderson at quarterback. I had money on Indianapolis. But I can also admit after the fact that the final score doesn't tell the whole story. From a yards-per-play perspective, Buffalo gained 5.51 per play while the Colts gained 6.27. That type of discrepancy would typically yield roughly a five-point win for Indianapolis.


Turnovers and penalties are obviously part of the game, and Derek Anderson compared to Andrew Luck is a stark opposite. But we should never expect a plus-five or minus-five turnover differential in a single game to be the norm. I imagine Anderson will be under center for the time being in Buffalo. My recommendation is to proceed with caution. Do not automatically look to bet against the Bills. In Week 8 they are getting the Patriots at home and the market currently sits +13.5 or +14. This is actually inflated some, with my projection coming in at +12.2. Buffalo still fields the fourth-best defense in the league, and there certainly should never be teams that you look to bet on or fade blindly because of a result of a single game.
Handicapper's toolbox: Bankroll management

I know it is cliché to mention bankroll management and discuss its importance to ultimately being a profitable bettor. Or, even if you aren't going to be a profitable bettor, it will make whatever amount of skin you put into the game last much longer. I had a few questions this week about bet sizing, and so I figured now is as good a time as ever to let you know how I go about betting on games. I have a feeling that the majority of readers are betting more on each game than they should be.


The first thing I would recommend is reading up on Kelly Criterion and getting familiar with why it is regularly used. I have a variation of Kelly that I use for my personal wagering, and this ultimately helps me decide the optimal bet sizing to use on games -- which is dependent on my perceived edge against the market number -- to maximize my long-term profitability.


I have an allotted bankroll for each league that I wager on. My biggest edge is in the college football market, so my bankroll for college football has grown to be my biggest. I have always done it this way and stuck to it. I even have a separate amount allotted for college football futures bets in the preseason that I treat completely independently. NFL, NBA, college basketball (and everything else) all follow the same guidelines.


I risk between 0.5 percent and 2 percent of my bankroll on any given game. I can usually count on one hand at the end of the year the amount of times that I risk more than 2 percent of my bankroll on a single event. My volume is relatively high across most leagues, so this approach has worked for me. It is likely on the conservative side, but not by much.


My actual bet sizing in each league fluctuates week-to-week. If my 1 percent bankroll bet was $100 in my first week ($10,000 bankroll), and I made $500 during that first week, my new 1 percent bankroll bet would be $105 for the second week. If I have a losing week, then my bet sizing slightly decreases accordingly. This will compound profitability over time if you're a winning bettor, and it limit losses as you lose.


Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter if you have questions concerning your personal bankrolls and how to manage them optimally. It is a significant piece to the winning-betting-on-sports puzzle. It is also way less stressful setting up a plan and then sticking to it. We all have enough stress in our lives already as it is. Happiness EV -- it's a thing.
Slate standout: Jacksonville Jaguars vs. Philadelphia Eagles


This may not be the most popular matchup or marquee media choice for Week 8, but I think it is the most intriguing from a future betting perspective going forward this season. The Jaguars are an absolute train wreck, so it is hard for me, ultimately, to disagree with the current market line of Eagles -3.5. My raw number makes the line Jaguars +1.1. This is pretty extreme, but remember -- Doug Marrone said every starting spot is open this week, so who even knows which players will be playing, and when, or for how long.


The Super Bowl champion Eagles, on the other hand, just blew a 17-0 fourth-quarter lead at home to the Panthers. Carolina scored 21 straight to close the game and claim the victory. Philadelphia is starting to flirt with "must-win" territory. They certainly will be with a loss in Jacksonville. That adds another layer to this game that I am interested to see play out. Statistically, the Jaguars have the better offense and the better defense (by far) this season, and this team is a 3.5-point underdog! Philadelphia doesn't turn the ball over at the rate Jacksonville does, though.


I honestly can't wrap my head around what is going on here. I don't think oddsmakers can either. There will be the camp proclaiming the number is ridiculous and we should expect max effort from every Jacksonville player this week. There will also be people saying the team is falling apart and they no longer have an identity, and betting on such a team would be like lighting your money on fire. It's hard to disagree with either side of this. I'm fine sitting back and seeing what happens.