954 Cincy-San Fran under 7 (+104)
962 Oakland-Texas under 9 (-104)
963 Yankees +124
968 Cleveland-Washington under 7 (+108)
976 Colorado-Baltimore under 9 (-107)
261 Broncos pk -106 (pinnacle)
I've never been good at handicapping preseason football, and I think my last winning year was 2006. Every year I look for patterns, trends, ideas and seem to only come up with different ways to lose. The general answer is that my old handicapping always caused me to see things that made the line what it was, as opposed to reasons why a given side was an overlay. So, I'm starting over and redoing my thinking.
The Bears look like a team that's a respectable mess. They have a coach who is competent, but not spectacular, and the players don't look like they've fully bought into his methodology. In watching their games last year, they always seemed to play a completely reactive game, never anticipating what was about happen next. Jay Cutler was his usual self last year, putting up somewhat respectable stats without winning any big games. Yards passing can be an extremely deceptive statistic since quarterbacks tend to throw more when the team is losing. Overall, they're a team that knows they won't be able to compete with Green Bay and Minnesota this year, and it's hard to picture them being enthusiastic enough to play well.
Denver is moving in a completely different direction. They're underrated by the market because of uncertainty at quarterback. Anyone who watched their games last year (both Manning and Osweiler starts) knows that they won despite their quarterback play, not because of it. They ran the ball, didn't turn it over, and play great defense and special teams. A team that good at fundamentals will always be better than the sum of its parts. As for this game, Lynch probably won't be asked to do anything other than hand the ball off and make short passes. Sanchez and Siemian should be able to move the ball against the backups on defense for the Bears.
Denver has at least a slight edge in every phase of this game and should win here.
Benny I'm the last guy to tell anyone about betting on the NFL but taking the teams and looking at what they did last year has nothing with this years pre-season. It's all about QB's rotations and Coaches. I have the list of every teams QB rotation to start the pre-season and go from there seeing if it's changing because of play or injury and also trying to find out how much playing time they get from week to week. I also have every coaches record in preseason for years and I also have that broken down by weeks and IMO that's all that's needed. It's pre-season different Offensive and defensive lines coming and going out. We know the third preseason game there's a good amount of playing time for the starters usually at least a half and the fourth game before final cut the starters usually hardy play at all. Knowing some coaches want to start the season off a win for various reasons and some really don't care and are more concerned with health knowing that's what it takes to win it all.
Benny I'm the last guy to tell anyone about betting on the NFL but taking the teams and looking at what they did last year has nothing with this years pre-season. It's all about QB's rotations and Coaches. I have the list of every teams QB rotation to start the pre-season and go from there seeing if it's changing because of play or injury and also trying to find out how much playing time they get from week to week. I also have every coaches record in preseason for years and I also have that broken down by weeks and IMO that's all that's needed. It's pre-season different Offensive and defensive lines coming and going out. We know the third preseason game there's a good amount of playing time for the starters usually at least a half and the fourth game before final cut the starters usually hardy play at all. Knowing some coaches want to start the season off a win for various reasons and some really don't care and are more concerned with health knowing that's what it takes to win it all.
You're right to a point. It is all about the quarterbacks rotation, but I think coaching tendencies are factored into the line. Some coaches were completely apathetic (Marv Levy comes to mind), and the market completely changed then. I've watched a lot of the show Hard Knocks this summer, and I'm not sure any coach cares about the outcome. Their only concern is getting reps and selecting backups.
Comments
922 Devil Rays-Rockies under 11 1/2 (-109)
922 Devil Rays-Rockies under 11 1/2 (-109)
906 Cubs-Mets under 7 1/2 (-123)
910 Baltimore-New York under 9 (+106)
968 Indians-Royals under 4 1/2 (-115) first five
652 Indiana-L.A. under 159 1/2
916 Cleveland-KC under 8 1/2 (-125)
212-200 (+1.21)
915 Indians -113
906 Arizona-Cincy under 9 1/2 (-125)
926 Texas-KC under 7 1/2 (+106)
I absolutely hate the Indians bet here, but I'm just recording the system's plays.
Mets -120
Tigers +127
960 Boston -124
958 Reds-Giants under 4 -110 first five
128 Toronto-Montreal under 46 1/2
962 Oakland-Texas under 9 (-104)
963 Yankees +124
968 Cleveland-Washington under 7 (+108)
976 Colorado-Baltimore under 9 (-107)
912 Houston +105
910 Twins-Indians under 8 (-107)
No internet for the past week because Comcast takes forever to get repairmen to do anything.
979 Yankees +117
956 Reds-Cardinals under 8.5 (-110)
969 Royals +113
958 Marlins-Cubs under 7 (-121)
962 Diamondbacks +134
963 Brewers -112
920 Tigers-White Sox under 8 1/2 (-120)
922 KC-Tampa under 4 (-126) first five
230-220 (-2.5 units)
125 Roughriders +10
902 Cincy-Pitt under 7 1/2
925 Mets +109
924 L.A.-Seattle under 8 (-121)
930 Boston-L.A. under 7 (-105)
I've never been good at handicapping preseason football, and I think my last winning year was 2006. Every year I look for patterns, trends, ideas and seem to only come up with different ways to lose. The general answer is that my old handicapping always caused me to see things that made the line what it was, as opposed to reasons why a given side was an overlay. So, I'm starting over and redoing my thinking.
The Bears look like a team that's a respectable mess. They have a coach who is competent, but not spectacular, and the players don't look like they've fully bought into his methodology. In watching their games last year, they always seemed to play a completely reactive game, never anticipating what was about happen next. Jay Cutler was his usual self last year, putting up somewhat respectable stats without winning any big games. Yards passing can be an extremely deceptive statistic since quarterbacks tend to throw more when the team is losing. Overall, they're a team that knows they won't be able to compete with Green Bay and Minnesota this year, and it's hard to picture them being enthusiastic enough to play well.
Denver is moving in a completely different direction. They're underrated by the market because of uncertainty at quarterback. Anyone who watched their games last year (both Manning and Osweiler starts) knows that they won despite their quarterback play, not because of it. They ran the ball, didn't turn it over, and play great defense and special teams. A team that good at fundamentals will always be better than the sum of its parts. As for this game, Lynch probably won't be asked to do anything other than hand the ball off and make short passes. Sanchez and Siemian should be able to move the ball against the backups on defense for the Bears.
Denver has at least a slight edge in every phase of this game and should win here.
905 Arizona-New York over 7 (-115)
977 Angels +172
972 As under 9 -123
You're right to a point. It is all about the quarterbacks rotation, but I think coaching tendencies are factored into the line. Some coaches were completely apathetic (Marv Levy comes to mind), and the market completely changed then. I've watched a lot of the show Hard Knocks this summer, and I'm not sure any coach cares about the outcome. Their only concern is getting reps and selecting backups.