Betting Talk

NFL post-season 2018-2019 thread

sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
edited February 2019 in Sports Betting
Texans -1

Comments

  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    The other three games are too close to my number, but wanted to point out re Texans/Colts, the Texans have the best rush D in NFL and kept the Colts to just 50 and 41 yards rushing in the two times they played them this season. Meanwhile the Texans pass D is pretty bad. But in playoffs since 2000, away teams rushing for less than 80 yards and passing for more than 250 yards are 3-22 SU and 6-19 ATS, and just 0-10 SU and 1-9 ATS if passing for 300+ yards (and rushing for less than 80 yds). And mind you, since 2011, the Colts are just 6-13 ATS when they rush for less than 80 yards and pass for 250+ yards. So I don't see Luck passing his way to victory here.

    (I don't play totals but in above scenarios, the Over hits at 70+% clip)
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    Incredible. Houston allows 3.4 yards per carry, NFL's lowest, and allowed Colts 50 yards or less rushing both times faced them this season, yet yesterday Texans allow Colts to rush for 200 yards (!), for 5.7 yards per rush!! Colts had almost as much rushing as passing yards!! Must confess, didn't see that happening. In fact, Colts ran the ball 35 times compared to 32 pass attempts, WTF. There was no reason for Luck to throw since they were having so much success rushing the ball (perhaps to Colts surprise initially). Just a complete breakdown by the Texans. Coaching at fault?
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    Grabbing the Eagles +8
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    Chiefs -3

    Was waiting in hopes line would dip down to -2.5, looks unlikely. I see it KC 34-21 with home/away versions of these teams being a big factor.
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    Btw, I have no clue re outcome of Saints/Rams game. I have the line right about at Saints -3. However, I will say if the Saints want to win the game much less cover, the #1 thing they need to do is stop Rams run game, i.e. keep them under 120 yards rushing. This season the Rams are 11-0 SU and 7-4 ATS if run for over 120 yards, and just 3-3 SU and 2-4 ATS if run for under 120. And note if Rams passed for over 200 yards, they were 9-2 SU and 5-6 ATS, and if they passed for under 200 yards they were 5-1 SU and 4-2 ATS. The point being the Rams do well more so based on their run game than pass game. The run game working opens up lots of opportunities. As it turns out, if there's one thing the Saints D is esp. good at it's stopping the run. In fact in every game this season the Saints have kept their foe to under 120 yards rushing. Every game. That's impressive. Even a very good D team can have a clunker game or two in a season and allow a foe to light them up somewhere. But this rush D has been VERY consistent.
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    Also, Rams rush D is VERY bad. When Saints ran for more than 100 yards, they went 10-0 SU and 8-2 ATS (toss week 17, meaningless game). When Saints rushed for less than 100, they were 3-2 SU and 1-4 ATS.
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited January 2019
    There are many reasons I like KC over NE, one being sacks. At 3.2 per game, KC defense is tied for #1 in NFL (with Pitt) for getting sacks this season. NE is at #30 with just 1.9 sacks per game. The median number of sacks per game in NFL is 2.5 in 2018. In playoffs since 2001, teams with seasonal avg of >2.5 sacks per game playing foe with seasonal avg of <2.5 sacks per game are 47-32-4 ATS, 60% ATS If the team with >2.5 sacks in playoffs is home laying less than 6 pts vs. <2.5 sacks pg team = 16-8 ATS And when the foe goes down to <2.3 sacks per game (Pats), home team is 12-4 ATS in playoffs.... does not bode well for Pats... recall when Titans trounced NE in week 10, Titans got 3 sacks vs Brady (& for what it's worth, NE was away... and Tenn averaged just 2.4 sacks per game))
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited February 2019
    Rams +2.5

    Using seasonal stats, I have line at Pats -1. Using just road stats, I have line at Rams -5. It's no secret that Pats in reg season were much better home than away this year, going just 3-5 SU & ATS away with average score being 24-21 in favor of the opposition. Meanwhile, the Rams were 6-2 SU and 4-4 ATS away, winning by average score of 29-20 -- something worth keeping in mind re this neutral site in Atlanta.

    Yes, I know, playing against Brady/Belichick has been just burning $$ over time, but that imo has helped to inflate this line. And I would argue it's been some time since Pats have faced a coach like McVay, who can game plan maybe as well as Belichick. Clearly Belichick outcoached Reid, something I did not think would be so egregious, especially given the home/away disparity, but McVay is superior to Reid.

    As is often the case with NFL, I believe this game boils down to the running game. In the NFL, since 2010, using over 1000 games, when a team rushes for more than 100 yards, they're 63% ATS and when rushing for less than 100 yards they're 35% ATS. Compare to when a team passes for more than 250 yards, they're 52% ATS, and when passing for less than 250 yards they're 49% ATS. The point is NOT that passing game isn't important, but rather on average the rushing game is more important, and frankly indicative of how the game went. Often if a team has low rush yardage, they were down in the game, losing, and needed to pass to try and catch up (see SD vs. NE as latest example). Bottom line, if a team can't establish the run to attain at least 100 yards, they're likely in trouble.

    And just focusing on these two teams, when Rams rushed for less than 100 yards this season, they are 3-3 SU and ATS, and when rushing for >100 yards, 11-0 SU and 7-4 ATS. For Pats, rushing for less than 100 yds, 2-5 SU and ATS, and for more than 100 yds, 11-0 SU and 9-2 ATS. So as is the case for the league, the run game is key for these 2 teams, and arguably even more important for Pats.

    It's always said Belichick is very good at taking away the foe's key facet. Will he be able to keep Rams less than 100 yards rushing? He was able to keep KC to just 41 yds rushing and KC is tied with Rams at #4 for rushing yards per attempt. Can he repeat? I'm betting no. NE rush D ranks #26 out of #32 on seasonal stats. Is NE suddenly an excellent rush D team? They kept SD to just 19 yards rushing, but NE was home and before you could say boo SD was out of that game, forced into pass mode for most of game. During the regular season, NE let more than a few teams run for >100 yards, teams not as good as Rams at rushing. In fact, on the road, NE rush D is ranked #30 out of 32. And Gurley is reportedly 100%, but CJ has been very good, speaking volumes about the Rams OL. Mind you, Rams rushed for just 77 yards in last vs. Saints, but Saints rank #1 in rush D, far better than NE rush D. And prior to that game, Rams rushed for 273 yards vs. Dallas, which is ranked #5 rush D. Bottom line, Rams should get the run game going, opening up other opportunities re passing. And even if not, means Belichick devoted much to stop the run, again leaving open passing opportunities.

    Compare this to Pats, what are the odds they can get > 100 yards rushing? I think lower than Rams doing so. For one, Rams are #4 in league for rushing (per attempt), compared to NE ranked just #21 in rush O. Rams rush D is not good, as bad as NE, BUT they did keep Zeke contained (and NE has no one nearly as good as him).

    But heck, the fact is when Rams have greater rushing yards than foe this season they're 12-0 SU. I'm willing to go with that prop, Rams get more yards rushing than Pats, doing so with the +2.5 game line.
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited February 2019
    Also, one can cherry-pick galore re stats, but I cited sacks in the KC/NE game, assuming it might be a factor. KC ranked near tops and NE near bottom, but Belichick outcoached Reid, and KC go zero sacks and NE got 4. Yeesh, go figure.
    Rams are ranked #15 for sacks vs. Pats ranked #30. In post-season, team that average >2.3 sacks in season (Rams) vs. team that averages <2.1 sacks in season (Pats) is 32-12 SU... (and yes this includes KC losing to NE, stat was 32-11)
  • sosoangrysosoangry Senior Member
    edited February 2019
    I went 1-3 this post-season, with two of those losses due to going against Belichick. I gave my reasons, no regrets, but wow, Belichick makes handicapping and studying stats sort of meaningless. In many ways it's why he continues to defy Vegas and the spread, where the books are supposed to adjust to make more/less 50% ATS the norm, and yet Belichick (and Brady) spell trouble for Vegas year after year. KC should've had a great day rushing vs. NE bad rush D -- didn't happen. Rams should've been able to run well vs. the bad NE rush D -- didn't happen. Belichick just consistently outcoaches the opposition. Throw out all seasonal stats. And this Super Bowl win was more Belichick's than any other in memory. And it's not because he outcoached the young phenom McVay (who admitted it after in post-game interview), keeping a team that averaged 32 ppg to just 3, wow. But also because he outcoached KC and SD to get to SB. And note that Brady had a good but not great SB, he was not in the mix for MVP. This SB and post-season was all Belichick. Hats off, GOAT NFL head coach.
Sign In or Register to comment.