The Best ATS Teams in Football This Year???

Broken-Ear Glen · 08-10-11, 12:09 AM

All the hype around the Eagles is really over shadowing how weak their front 7 is. More Specifically the interior line and linebackers. Safties are nothing special.

I actually think they'll be one of the worst teams against the spread because so many people just see Nnamdi and just can't get off of Vick's jock. This is gonna cause largely inflated lines and I think dogs will cover more often than not and be a good bet against them. They'll probably of course win at least 10 games but I can't see them being an ATS monster. After a year of film on Vick defenses will be more prepared but don't get me wrong he'll still be tough to stop.

I agree on the Colts but two other teams I like as strong ATS teams are the Bucs and Browns. Two young teams that have nothing to lose and can only go up. Both showed very good signs last year but the public will still bet against them just because of the names.

McBa1n · 08-10-11, 12:58 AM

I think you're nuts saying that Philly will be good against the spread at this point. The more player turnover you have, the less likely you are to have success. NFL is a team league. Philly has lost a LOT of players and brought in a lot of potential leaders. It takes time to build respect/trust in your teammates, no matter how many TOP talents they've brought in. If anything, Eagles are a very good fade. Also, I still think Vick is one of the more over-valued players in the league. He either wears down or his success goes to his head Willie Beamon style. Either way, the Eagles melt vs a Joe Webb led Viqueen team and gave up home field and then lost a big game to GB, IN Philly. Philly played an o.k. game, but they just didn't look the better team at any point.

As far as ATS teams, the spread catches up quickly. The thing you have to look for is bad teams from last year that can play some decent D and run the ball. The Vikings come to mind. They're LOW on the 'power rankings', yet at least 4 of their earlier losses last year are attributable to Bevel and Childress. Games they SHOULD have won. Bad game plans, HORRIBLE play calling. I think the Vikings are a good team to ride a bit because they've shed a LOT of talent, but still have a LOT of talent. Losing Leber, McKinnie, Sidney and Ray Edwards is a LOT of talent to shed... I think McNabb gets the stinkeye from most NFL people, but I think he can still play. With AP being a proper featured back, in spite of a very mediocre, at best, line (if they have Loadholt starting at RT, beware), they still are a threat.

There's other teams that will be undervalued, but I havn't done any work yet on it, because I havn't seen a snap in preseason. Those that do their homework will see teams on the rise. It's not always the 1st team that tells the story, but the 2nd team. Depth in the NFL is everything, especially if you're losing marginal players to injury. It's also about playmakers, of which each team only has so many... Health in the right spots and depth will tell the story. If you watched last year's preseason, you'd see Foster down in Houston was a player to watch. You rarely see more than a few players that stand out, but those that put in the time get the early jump.

SpreadSniper · 08-10-11, 12:15 PM

its the under the radar teams who usually preform well vs the spread..... all Philly's "offseason" acquitistions did was put them under the magnifying scope... odds makers know Philly is going to be the public play most weeks and will set the lines accordingly.

hitman09 · 08-10-11, 12:21 PM

I think about Lions team....they are good for last 2-3 years on the spread sheet.

SpreadSniper · 08-10-11, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by hitman09

I think about Lions team....they are good for last 2-3 years on the spread sheet.

the problem here is that public perception is catching up... most people know this is not your mom and dad's lions anymore.