Should be a great game to start the season. A few things make me lean under. Semi-rebuilding offensive lines from both teams. CSU loses 3 all-conference players along the line. And OSU replaces nearly 90 career starts on the O-line. Both teams more experienced and should improve on defense (8 starters back on both teams). Oregon St has also added quite a bit of beef upfront over the previous 2 seasons under Anderson. They should be much tougher to move out of the way this year. Both of these teams ran under 70 plays per game last season. I don't really expect any different in this game with the excellent RB's on both squads. It should keep the clock moving, which really favors and under with the number over 60. Barring too many unexpected fumbles or special teams plays, I like this one to go under...
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
What's up guys? It's great to be back!
Colorado St./Oregon St. Under 61 (1 unit)
Should be a great game to start the season. A few things make me lean under. Semi-rebuilding offensive lines from both teams. CSU loses 3 all-conference players along the line. And OSU replaces nearly 90 career starts on the O-line. Both teams more experienced and should improve on defense (8 starters back on both teams). Oregon St has also added quite a bit of beef upfront over the previous 2 seasons under Anderson. They should be much tougher to move out of the way this year. Both of these teams ran under 70 plays per game last season. I don't really expect any different in this game with the excellent RB's on both squads. It should keep the clock moving, which really favors and under with the number over 60. Barring too many unexpected fumbles or special teams plays, I like this one to go under...
Thanks fellas. Good luck to you all tomorrow. I'm also leaning the under in the Stanford/Rice game. Haven't decided yet if I want to play it. It might be a game time decision.
0
Thanks fellas. Good luck to you all tomorrow. I'm also leaning the under in the Stanford/Rice game. Haven't decided yet if I want to play it. It might be a game time decision.
I really couldn't come to a decision on the spread in the CSU/OSU game. It looks very even to me. Although I have no dog in the fight, it would probably benefit me a little if Oregon St. wins. It would probably buy me a little better number on the spread next week when CU plays CSU. I really should have bought that game early, but I wanted to wait and see how CSU performs in this first game. What you see should be what you get since they are playing at home in their first game in their new stadium against a P5 team. The CSU players should give it their max effort, I would think. BOL tomorrow!
0
Quote Originally Posted by DoubleUp4Life:
GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU BROTHER
Best of Luck .....I am on the Rams -2.5 ////
I really couldn't come to a decision on the spread in the CSU/OSU game. It looks very even to me. Although I have no dog in the fight, it would probably benefit me a little if Oregon St. wins. It would probably buy me a little better number on the spread next week when CU plays CSU. I really should have bought that game early, but I wanted to wait and see how CSU performs in this first game. What you see should be what you get since they are playing at home in their first game in their new stadium against a P5 team. The CSU players should give it their max effort, I would think. BOL tomorrow!
After much debate, we ended up picking the over here. Best of luck to you!
https://ourtakeonspreads.wordpress.com/
Nice site, I bookmarked it. I can always use a second opinion! A few of my thoughts on the under other than what I mentioned above: If you go by last season I think the line value favors the under. Everybody's last memory of CSU was when they were playing in the Potato Bowl and Idaho was putting up 61 points on them (probably gave us a couple more points on this total). When CSU caught fire in the second half of last season, they put up a lot of points. But keep in mind that it was against some of the worst defenses in the conference/country, and an uninterested SDST who had already cliched their division. But when you look at their lined games, other than Idaho and New Mexico, all of CSU's games were lined in the 50's. Their average lined total was just 57.7. You can't look at one side without looking at the other. The average total for Oregon St was just 56.1. Mainly because OSU was ranked just 105th in the country on offense last year. Do I expect improvement this season? Yes, but it is still the same philosophy. And who knows how much improvement they'll actually show in this first game on the road. Anderson will run the ball as much as the defense lets him. They ran an average of just 66 plays a game last year. Which makes it very tough to consistently get into the 30's in any game. But that's what they'll more than likely have to do in this game to send it over the total. On the other side, both of these teams have very solid back sevens. Both struggled somewhat upfront in 2016, but I expect improvement in that area with the added experience. Plus I think they'll be a little ahead of the offensive lines at this point since both teams are having to replace some key players on those units. I think at the very least it could be a slow starting game with both teams getting a feel for what each other have up front...Just my 2 cents.
0
Quote Originally Posted by OurTake:
After much debate, we ended up picking the over here. Best of luck to you!
https://ourtakeonspreads.wordpress.com/
Nice site, I bookmarked it. I can always use a second opinion! A few of my thoughts on the under other than what I mentioned above: If you go by last season I think the line value favors the under. Everybody's last memory of CSU was when they were playing in the Potato Bowl and Idaho was putting up 61 points on them (probably gave us a couple more points on this total). When CSU caught fire in the second half of last season, they put up a lot of points. But keep in mind that it was against some of the worst defenses in the conference/country, and an uninterested SDST who had already cliched their division. But when you look at their lined games, other than Idaho and New Mexico, all of CSU's games were lined in the 50's. Their average lined total was just 57.7. You can't look at one side without looking at the other. The average total for Oregon St was just 56.1. Mainly because OSU was ranked just 105th in the country on offense last year. Do I expect improvement this season? Yes, but it is still the same philosophy. And who knows how much improvement they'll actually show in this first game on the road. Anderson will run the ball as much as the defense lets him. They ran an average of just 66 plays a game last year. Which makes it very tough to consistently get into the 30's in any game. But that's what they'll more than likely have to do in this game to send it over the total. On the other side, both of these teams have very solid back sevens. Both struggled somewhat upfront in 2016, but I expect improvement in that area with the added experience. Plus I think they'll be a little ahead of the offensive lines at this point since both teams are having to replace some key players on those units. I think at the very least it could be a slow starting game with both teams getting a feel for what each other have up front...Just my 2 cents.
Did Craig Evans get eligible for Oregon State. Kid is a difference maker on cline.
I agree Evans is a difference maker. I haven't been able to find anything on him under injury reports, etc. I'm assuming he's eligible and playing, but I could be wrong. I'm more curious to see how QB Luton performs. He's a big kid at 6'7. He could kill my under in a hurry if he turns out to be something semi-special in the passing game. Right now we're all clueless, but he was a fairly high rated JC. So who knows..
0
Quote Originally Posted by nils1213:
Did Craig Evans get eligible for Oregon State. Kid is a difference maker on cline.
I agree Evans is a difference maker. I haven't been able to find anything on him under injury reports, etc. I'm assuming he's eligible and playing, but I could be wrong. I'm more curious to see how QB Luton performs. He's a big kid at 6'7. He could kill my under in a hurry if he turns out to be something semi-special in the passing game. Right now we're all clueless, but he was a fairly high rated JC. So who knows..
Nice site, I bookmarked it. I can always use a second opinion! A few of my thoughts on the under other than what I mentioned above: If you go by last season I think the line value favors the under. Everybody's last memory of CSU was when they were playing in the Potato Bowl and Idaho was putting up 61 points on them (probably gave us a couple more points on this total). When CSU caught fire in the second half of last season, they put up a lot of points. But keep in mind that it was against some of the worst defenses in the conference/country, and an uninterested SDST who had already cliched their division. But when you look at their lined games, other than Idaho and New Mexico, all of CSU's games were lined in the 50's. Their average lined total was just 57.7. You can't look at one side without looking at the other. The average total for Oregon St was just 56.1. Mainly because OSU was ranked just 105th in the country on offense last year. Do I expect improvement this season? Yes, but it is still the same philosophy. And who knows how much improvement they'll actually show in this first game on the road. Anderson will run the ball as much as the defense lets him. They ran an average of just 66 plays a game last year. Which makes it very tough to consistently get into the 30's in any game. But that's what they'll more than likely have to do in this game to send it over the total. On the other side, both of these teams have very solid back sevens. Both struggled somewhat upfront in 2016, but I expect improvement in that area with the added experience. Plus I think they'll be a little ahead of the offensive lines at this point since both teams are having to replace some key players on those units. I think at the very least it could be a slow starting game with both teams getting a feel for what each other have up front...Just my 2 cents.
This is a great in depth analysis. So much depends on how well their fronts play. Best of luck to you. Here goes another exciting season...
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrStrangelove:
Nice site, I bookmarked it. I can always use a second opinion! A few of my thoughts on the under other than what I mentioned above: If you go by last season I think the line value favors the under. Everybody's last memory of CSU was when they were playing in the Potato Bowl and Idaho was putting up 61 points on them (probably gave us a couple more points on this total). When CSU caught fire in the second half of last season, they put up a lot of points. But keep in mind that it was against some of the worst defenses in the conference/country, and an uninterested SDST who had already cliched their division. But when you look at their lined games, other than Idaho and New Mexico, all of CSU's games were lined in the 50's. Their average lined total was just 57.7. You can't look at one side without looking at the other. The average total for Oregon St was just 56.1. Mainly because OSU was ranked just 105th in the country on offense last year. Do I expect improvement this season? Yes, but it is still the same philosophy. And who knows how much improvement they'll actually show in this first game on the road. Anderson will run the ball as much as the defense lets him. They ran an average of just 66 plays a game last year. Which makes it very tough to consistently get into the 30's in any game. But that's what they'll more than likely have to do in this game to send it over the total. On the other side, both of these teams have very solid back sevens. Both struggled somewhat upfront in 2016, but I expect improvement in that area with the added experience. Plus I think they'll be a little ahead of the offensive lines at this point since both teams are having to replace some key players on those units. I think at the very least it could be a slow starting game with both teams getting a feel for what each other have up front...Just my 2 cents.
This is a great in depth analysis. So much depends on how well their fronts play. Best of luck to you. Here goes another exciting season...
Well we were both wrong. 31 points first 20 minutes of play. Too many 2nd and 3rd and longs and letting offenses convert. Bad defense by both teams and too many big plays. No this isn't a jinx post. Getum next time. Maybe we get lucky and slows down but doubt it. No regrets on the bet it happens.
0
Well we were both wrong. 31 points first 20 minutes of play. Too many 2nd and 3rd and longs and letting offenses convert. Bad defense by both teams and too many big plays. No this isn't a jinx post. Getum next time. Maybe we get lucky and slows down but doubt it. No regrets on the bet it happens.
Well we were both wrong. 31 points first 20 minutes of play. Too many 2nd and 3rd and longs and letting offenses convert. Bad defense by both teams and too many big plays. No this isn't a jinx post. Getum next time. Maybe we get lucky and slows down but doubt it. No regrets on the bet it happens.
One thing that is impossible to cap is when these coaches totally deviate from their offensive philosophies. I would have never expected it, especially from Oregon St., who should be looking to shorten this game on the road and in the altitude instead of extending it. They are now paying for running what will probably be 90+ plays instead of their normal 66. The defense is sucking air in the 4th quarter. I don't understand that game plan at all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 165yds:
Well we were both wrong. 31 points first 20 minutes of play. Too many 2nd and 3rd and longs and letting offenses convert. Bad defense by both teams and too many big plays. No this isn't a jinx post. Getum next time. Maybe we get lucky and slows down but doubt it. No regrets on the bet it happens.
One thing that is impossible to cap is when these coaches totally deviate from their offensive philosophies. I would have never expected it, especially from Oregon St., who should be looking to shorten this game on the road and in the altitude instead of extending it. They are now paying for running what will probably be 90+ plays instead of their normal 66. The defense is sucking air in the 4th quarter. I don't understand that game plan at all.
Strange, I was so close to playing the under on your recommendation. Had to much else going on. You are solid every week. Not many guys left I like to listen to.
Stay Hard, Doc
0
Strange, I was so close to playing the under on your recommendation. Had to much else going on. You are solid every week. Not many guys left I like to listen to.
Strange, I was so close to playing the under on your recommendation. Had to much else going on. You are solid every week. Not many guys left I like to listen to.
Stay Hard, Doc
Too many bad turnovers. I still don't know why Anderson didn't stuff it down their throats...That was ugly
0
Quote Originally Posted by Pecador:
Strange, I was so close to playing the under on your recommendation. Had to much else going on. You are solid every week. Not many guys left I like to listen to.
Stay Hard, Doc
Too many bad turnovers. I still don't know why Anderson didn't stuff it down their throats...That was ugly
One thing that is impossible to cap is when these coaches totally deviate from their offensive philosophies. I would have never expected it, especially from Oregon St., who should be looking to shorten this game on the road and in the altitude instead of extending it. They are now paying for running what will probably be 90+ plays instead of their normal 66. The defense is sucking air in the 4th quarter. I don't understand that game plan at all.
HUDDLE......run it down their throats / protect your D....play to your strengths vs their weakness...........WTF..................
The impediment to action advances action - what stands in the way becomes the way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by DrStrangelove:
One thing that is impossible to cap is when these coaches totally deviate from their offensive philosophies. I would have never expected it, especially from Oregon St., who should be looking to shorten this game on the road and in the altitude instead of extending it. They are now paying for running what will probably be 90+ plays instead of their normal 66. The defense is sucking air in the 4th quarter. I don't understand that game plan at all.
HUDDLE......run it down their throats / protect your D....play to your strengths vs their weakness...........WTF..................
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
