2 statistical opportunities in NFL week 3

greenhippo · 09-16-14, 08:47 PM

Question for you Dom, do you think the players on the Falcons care that they have covered the last 4 Thursday night games? Or do you think it's more feasible that they will go out and try to win regardless? Do you think the Bucs are aware of the same thing and will put less than full effort out there?

DOM_Toretto · 09-16-14, 08:51 PM

Not a question of effort here. It's a list of stats and trends that point heavily one way. Both ATL & TB will try just as hard as any other divisional game. What's your point??

greenhippo · 09-16-14, 09:13 PM

Point is that stuff does not matter, the effort on the field determines the outcome, not what happened three years ago.

STAX · 09-16-14, 09:52 PM

Living in the past is what the books want you to do. Why do you think the books gives you a pamphlet with all these "trends" and past outcomes... because they know you are easy money if you read it. Dont waste your time on the past, it means nothing

DOM_Toretto · 09-16-14, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by STAX

Living in the past is what the books want you to do. Why do you think the books gives you a pamphlet with all these "trends" and past outcomes... because they know you are easy money if you read it. Dont waste your time on the past, it means nothing

That's retarted. If it were college I'd agree. But in the NFL without a major staff and personnel change, then you are wrong. Stats from this season and last DO project winners. Wtf do you do every game you bet on, try to guess who is gonna 'try' harder?? Please... They're all professional athletes, I think they're all trying. Smh. Dumbasses.

jcygts6 · 09-17-14, 12:19 AM

Werd! werd!

greenhippo · 09-17-14, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by DOM_Toretto

That's retarted. If it were college I'd agree. But in the NFL without a major staff and personnel change, then you are wrong. Stats from this season and last DO project winners. Wtf do you do every game you bet on, try to guess who is gonna 'try' harder?? Please... They're all professional athletes, I think they're all trying. Smh. Dumbasses.

So you DO agree that these players don't give a flying fukk about what happened on a Thursday night 3 years ago and it plays NO part in how much effort they put into the game on Sunday? Odd that you'd get all worked up yet agree with exactly the opposite of what you're trying to post.

POOLSIDE · 09-17-14, 04:41 AM

Buffalo/SD over isn't a bet I'd make. Not saying it'll lose, but your reasoning isn't sound to me. Rivers and the entire SD offense isn't great on the road to begin with, and this will be a 10am game for a west coast team traveling east. Plus Buffalo can play some defense.

Buffalo's offensive gameplan is to pound the rock. Jackson/Spiller will eat the clock.

I'm not sure why you think less turnovers lends itself to more points. No turnovers means more 80 yards drives and less pick sixes or great field position to start a drive.

Also the punting stat seems silly to me. Any punter in the league can kick the ball far. Hell, I can punt a football 50 yards and that's just a result of playing soccer my entire life. Short punts are usually a result of punting from somewhere near midfield. You're not trying to kick the ball 70 yards in the air. You're trying to kick the ball 40 yards and land it inside the 20 yard line. These punts from midfield are more often than not a result of a drive that gets two or three first downs before stalling just outside of fg range and being forced to punt. Aka several minutes off the clock and nothing to show for it.

Lastly, Buffalo struggles to finish drives. They scored 29 against Miami last weekend. Two touchdowns and FIVE FIELD GOALS. And one of those touchdowns was a kickoff return. That mans they had exactly one drive all game result in a touchdown.

Personally, I'm leaning under or nothing. 23-17 sounds realistic but I wouldn't bat an eyelash at 19-10.

DOM_Toretto · 09-17-14, 12:33 PM

There's no point in trying with greenhippo... I don't even know if he's serious or not.

And Poolside, if the score lands at 19-10 I will give you all my betpoints so you can get a free pizza while you come up with these highdeas.

newguy · 09-17-14, 12:51 PM

I think the second one (Atl -6.5) is more of a trend than a stat analysis right? Either way - I love Atlanta in this spot which scares me. You are telling me a team that just lost to Rams and Panthers with backup QB's going is going to hang with a strong Atlanta team that took down Saints at home? Doesn't add up to me - so this is likely a Watch No Bet game for me.

I think Poolside actually brought up a good point with the correlation between starting field position and punt distance. A good stat would be to possibly look at how the shorter punts correlated with the starting field position. No opinion on the total personally but thought it was a great stat and then a good note from poolside to possibly improve it a bit.

Good luck either way Dom!!

I/O · 09-17-14, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by POOLSIDE

Buffalo/SD over isn't a bet I'd make. Not saying it'll lose, but your reasoning isn't sound to me. Rivers and the entire SD offense isn't great on the road to begin with, and this will be a 10am game for a west coast team traveling east. Plus Buffalo can play some defense.

Buffalo's offensive gameplan is to pound the rock. Jackson/Spiller will eat the clock.

I'm not sure why you think less turnovers lends itself to more points. No turnovers means more 80 yards drives and less pick sixes or great field position to start a drive.

Also the punting stat seems silly to me. Any punter in the league can kick the ball far. Hell, I can punt a football 50 yards and that's just a result of playing soccer my entire life. Short punts are usually a result of punting from somewhere near midfield. You're not trying to kick the ball 70 yards in the air. You're trying to kick the ball 40 yards and land it inside the 20 yard line. These punts from midfield are more often than not a result of a drive that gets two or three first downs before stalling just outside of fg range and being forced to punt. Aka several minutes off the clock and nothing to show for it.

Lastly, Buffalo struggles to finish drives. They scored 29 against Miami last weekend. Two touchdowns and FIVE FIELD GOALS. And one of those touchdowns was a kickoff return. That mans they had exactly one drive all game result in a touchdown.

Personally, I'm leaning under or nothing. 23-17 sounds realistic but I wouldn't bat an eyelash at 19-10.

I've been saying this for years and I believe it applies to all sports. More turnovers = more Unders. Less turnovers = helps Overs

I/O · 09-17-14, 01:07 PM

FWIW

I know it's not gonna snow, but I'd wait till Sunday to see what the wind will be like in Buffalo. At least wait till it gets closer.

Also, Rivers coming off a Super Bowl win last week. He may revert to his norm on the road here.

DOM_Toretto · 09-17-14, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by I/O

I've been saying this for years and I believe it applies to all sports. More turnovers = more Unders. Less turnovers = helps Overs

Yes I agree, game turnovers and total points scored are inversely correlated.

sipawitz · 09-17-14, 01:15 PM

I like the under in buffalo

Renegades · 09-17-14, 01:26 PM

Way too small of a sample size to mean anything significant in the Atl/Tb game

sipawitz · 09-21-14, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by sipawitz

I like the under in buffalo

Cha-ching....what an easy win that was

jjgold · 09-21-14, 04:28 PM

Stats do not mean anything. As you can find a statistical advantages on every game

Jimmy Proffett · 09-21-14, 04:35 PM

0 turnovers, 32 total points..... oops-a-daisy.

Don't name-call in your own thread when someone posts something disagreeing with you. Bad juju. You dope.

sipawitz · 09-21-14, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Jimmy Proffett

0 turnovers, 32 total points..... oops-a-daisy.

Don't name-call in your own thread when someone posts something disagreeing with you. Bad juju. You dope.

Lol