All Forums | NFL Betting

give me an argument against the packers next week

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 7595
Posts: 101
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 781
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

Another tough guy with a keyboard.  You guys are so tough with insults.

As for stat-checking....

You mean the 49ers 4th best pass defense that faced a WHOOPING 5 teams in the Top 15 of the NFL this year in offense    13 games against offenses 15th and below

Not too shabby when HALF your games are against the bottom of the NFL in production

8 games against Zona, Zona, Rams, Rams, Jets, Bills, Dolphins and Bears(backup)......I hope you are a top defense \

If you want to go off stats, GB was 5 spots behind SF

 

Youre right.  The ONLY reason NE came back was SF was if prevent....even after 4 straight scores all prevent

 

 

 

Like I said same ol' remarks. OOO tough guy, why cause I called you a tool and a clown? Pretty sure you've been saying the same, "tough guy." Sorry I just call 'em as I see 'em

 

So you're making excuse like we have a soft schedule? Coming from the North that's a bold thing to say. Let's see who the Packers have played:

 

Lions, Lions, Saints, Titans, Cards, Rams, Jags, Bears, Bears, and the Vikings last week with their back up QB?

And you of all people can't even begin to make a claim that the Bear's are a decent team. You've been dogging them all year saying how bad they are, and you were right they are bad. So that's what, 9-10 bad teams.

 

You have wins against which good teams... Houston?

 

 

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #52
Quote Originally Posted by riq:

 

Like I said same ol' remarks. OOO tough guy, why cause I called you a tool and a clown? Pretty sure you've been saying the same, "tough guy." Sorry I just call 'em as I see 'em

 

So you're making excuse like we have a soft schedule? Coming from the North that's a bold thing to say. Let's see who the Packers have played:

 

Lions, Lions, Saints, Titans, Cards, Rams, Jags, Bears, Bears, and the Vikings last week with their back up QB?

And you of all people can't even begin to make a claim that the Bear's are a decent team. You've been dogging them all year saying how bad they are, and you were right they are bad. So that's what, 9-10 bad teams.

 

You have wins against which good teams... Houston?

 

 

 

WHen have I ONCE said anything about GB beating good teams or having a great this or that???

NEVER

YOU and SF fans are the ones throwing around stats about the GREAT SF numbers.....

All I did was say, if you look at those stats, 13 of their opp dont rank in the top half of football in offense

If that bothers you so be it.

You are the one that said "discount double check stats"

If you look at the numbers against the good offenses SF played this year, they are average at best

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #53
Quote Originally Posted by riq:

 

Like I said same ol' remarks. OOO tough guy, why cause I called you a tool and a clown? Pretty sure you've been saying the same, "tough guy." Sorry I just call 'em as I see 'em

 

So you're making excuse like we have a soft schedule? Coming from the North that's a bold thing to say. Let's see who the Packers have played:

 

Lions, Lions, Saints, Titans, Cards, Rams, Jags, Bears, Bears, and the Vikings last week with their back up QB?

And you of all people can't even begin to make a claim that the Bear's are a decent team. You've been dogging them all year saying how bad they are, and you were right they are bad. So that's what, 9-10 bad teams.

 

You have wins against which good teams... Houston?

 

 

 

SF played SEVEN games against teams ranked 32-22 in yards per game....and played only THREE against the top 15

 

GB played 7 in the top 15.....and 4 in the bottom 10

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 781
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

SF played SEVEN games against teams ranked 32-22 in yards per game....and played only THREE against the top 15

 

GB played 7 in the top 15.....and 4 in the bottom 10

 

And those THREE were the TOP THREE with all WINS.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 3803
Posted: #55
i think this game is so up in the air and comes down to how justin smith plays. i will be looking to make an ingame play after watching justin smith play. but i'd have to lean towards SF as much as i want to see GB win.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

SF played SEVEN games against teams ranked 32-22 in yards per game....and played only THREE against the top 15

 

GB played 7 in the top 15.....and 4 in the bottom 10


A much better metric to use is DVOA. 

With that, SF actually had a slightly tougher schedule than GB as far as opposing offenses are concerned.
SF played 7 of the top 10 DVOA ranked offenses, while GB played 6. 

As far as opposing defenses, it's not as close. SF played 9 games against top 10 DVOA defenses. GB played only 6 games against top ten D's.

SF had a strength of schedule of #3, while GB's was #9, according to DVOA.


Very difficult game to predict as far as betting, but SF has played a better and more rigorous overall schedule than GB. That is clear.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2003
Posts: 381
Posted: #57
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

WOW....be careful with those kind of "excuses".....I get KILLED on this site because I said GB had a game off against NY this year after a big win at Detroit and I STILL GET CREAMED for it....

I 100% understand where you come from, but 90% of people on this site dont understand how that happens...

As for your comments I disagree....many teams do it without the run now.  GB does plenty of screens to the RB, and WR screens and swing passes that have the result of runs.  They run just enough. 

As for the SF run against us.  Call me crazy, but I think the pistol favors GB.  As seen, GB cant stop a power runner right at them.  They are smaller upfront, but they have crazy speed on the outside.  I know Webb isnt kaep, but we shut down the Qb run while also shutting down AP. 

 

Either way, its going to be an awesome game.  Like I said, I think this winner, wins it all

If SF wins, they will need to score 24+.  Im not sure they can do that

 

Why do you not think SF can score 24 points against the Packers? The past is the past, but SF did score 30 in GB with Smith at QB...

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by riq:

 

And those THREE were the TOP THREE with all WINS.

Not because of their defense

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by mellow_wolf:


A much better metric to use is DVOA. 

With that, SF actually had a slightly tougher schedule than GB as far as opposing offenses are concerned.
SF played 7 of the top 10 DVOA ranked offenses, while GB played 6. 

As far as opposing defenses, it's not as close. SF played 9 games against top 10 DVOA defenses. GB played only 6 games against top ten D's.

SF had a strength of schedule of #3, while GB's was #9, according to DVOA.


Very difficult game to predict as far as betting, but SF has played a better and more rigorous overall schedule than GB. That is clear.

 

I actually dont use stats to make wagers....

They only reason I bring up stats is when I feel people dont look into them....

In my opinion, when a team plays 13 teams in the bottom 15 of the NFL in offense....a #4 ranking isnt that impressive

 

I disagree that SF played a tougher schedule...

SF played 4 games against teams in the playoffs and played 4 games against Rams and Cards(which I dont feel are good teams at all)

Gb played 5, including 2 games against Chicago which missed by 1 game....Yes Chicago faded, but Chicago destroyed both St Louis and Zona

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by brodeur:

 

Why do you not think SF can score 24 points against the Packers? The past is the past, but SF did score 30 in GB with Smith at QB...

 

Im not saying they cant.  In fact, in this thread and my own write-up, I believe SF wins this game 5 out of 10 times. 

I just dont know why people think GB will not score.  Gb will score atleast 24.  If SF wins this game, it will be because their offense not defense. 

GB is clicking now and getting healthier. 

Fact is, it comes down to I will take the Pack offense and Rodgers over Kapernick and his offense. 

People can say SF was in prevent against NE, but they werent.  Maybe for the 1st or maybe 2nd score.  But, NE continued to shred and shred.  Seattle did the same thing the next week. 

Gb has really changed their offense the last few weeks and have included alot of new wrinkles. 

I dont trust young qbs in the playoffs, let alone one that will have to make so many decisions with ball handling like Kaepernick will have to do. 

 

Its going to be a great game, but I think our offense will do just enough to pull off a victory

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2003
Posts: 14313
Posted: #61
Quote Originally Posted by hellahigh:

Theyre going into a hostile environment


Hostile Environment ??  They grill salmon.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #62
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

I actually dont use stats to make wagers....

They only reason I bring up stats is when I feel people dont look into them....

In my opinion, when a team plays 13 teams in the bottom 15 of the NFL in offense....a #4 ranking isnt that impressive

 

I disagree that SF played a tougher schedule...

SF played 4 games against teams in the playoffs and played 4 games against Rams and Cards(which I dont feel are good teams at all)

Gb played 5, including 2 games against Chicago which missed by 1 game....Yes Chicago faded, but Chicago destroyed both St Louis and Zona


Stats should be incorporated to make an informed wager. They cannot simply be ignored. You are using total yardage stats, which can be very misleading. Enhanced stats, like DVOA, are more revealing and can be useful in ferreting out indiscrepancies and true value. In your superficial assessments, SF has "appeared" to play an easier schedule. In reality, when using more definitive and comprehensive data, SF has played a clear-cut more difficult schedule, incorporating both quality of opponents offenses and defenses. 

Do what you wish, but ignore important, objective metrics at your wagering peril.

It's ok to be a fan of a certain team, but when it starts to influence and bias your wagering...it can become fatal.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #63
Quote Originally Posted by mellow_wolf:


Stats should be incorporated to make an informed wager. They cannot simply be ignored. You are using total yardage stats, which can be very misleading. Enhanced stats, like DVOA, are more revealing and can be useful in ferreting out indiscrepancies and true value. In your superficial assessments, SF has "appeared" to play an easier schedule. In reality, when using more definitive and comprehensive data, SF has played a clear-cut more difficult schedule, incorporating both quality of opponents offenses and defenses. 

Do what you wish, but ignore important, objective metrics at your wagering peril.

It's ok to be a fan of a certain team, but when it starts to influence and bias your wagering...it can become fatal.

People are free to use whatever they want to make a wager.  I think stats are misleading.

Fact is, I consider a team who makes the playoffs, a solid tough game.  GB has played more playoff teams.  Gb, also had 3 games against teams which were 1 game away from playoffs. 

Like you said about your stats....the Rams had better "Stats" than Chicago....Chicago DESTROYED THE RAMS...

SF had 2 games against the team with "your better stats" since they played the rams twice, when in the "real world", Chicago is a much better team

Thus, how "stats" are misleading

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #64
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

People are free to use whatever they want to make a wager.  I think stats are misleading.

Fact is, I consider a team who makes the playoffs, a solid tough game.  GB has played more playoff teams.  Gb, also had 3 games against teams which were 1 game away from playoffs. 

Like you said about your stats....the Rams had better "Stats" than Chicago....Chicago DESTROYED THE RAMS...

SF had 2 games against the team with "your better stats" since they played the rams twice, when in the "real world", Chicago is a much better team

Thus, how "stats" are misleading


It's clear your fandom is affecting your commentary. You don't know what I am talking about. Good luck.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by mellow_wolf:


It's clear your fandom is affecting your commentary. You don't know what I am talking about. Good luck.

 

Fandom???   I cant stand the Bears.

But, when you are comparing strength of schedule between team A and team B....

I consider 2 games against Chicago tougher than two games against the Rams

Yet, your "DVOA stats" would suggest the Rams are a tougher game

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #66
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

Fandom???   I cant stand the Bears.

But, when you are comparing strength of schedule between team A and team B....

I consider 2 games against Chicago tougher than two games against the Rams

Yet, your "DVOA stats" would suggest the Rams are a tougher game


No. Not correct. Go look it up for yourself. It's obvious you don't know what I am referring to.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

Your opinion is not a valid objective measurement, in any wagering situation.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #67
Quote Originally Posted by mellow_wolf:


No. Not correct. Go look it up for yourself. It's obvious you don't know what I am referring to.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff

Your opinion is not a valid objective measurement, in any wagering situation.

I dont care to take the time to look it up.  I do very well wagering not worry about "stats"

Best of luck to you.  You can throw whatever "stats" you want, but I disagree SF played a tougher schedule, when the fact alone GB played more playoff teams , including 3 other games agaisnt teams who missed by 1 game

 

I dont base wagers based on stats.  You do.  We both can win however we do it. 

Ive had my best betting year in football in a long time, not focusing on "stats"

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #68
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

I dont care to take the time to look it up.  I do very well wagering not worry about "stats"

Best of luck to you.  You can throw whatever "stats" you want, but I disagree SF played a tougher schedule, when the fact alone GB played more playoff teams , including 3 other games agaisnt teams who missed by 1 game

 

I dont base wagers based on stats.  You do.  We both can win however we do it. 

Ive had my best betting year in football in a long time, not focusing on "stats"


No. I don't use them exclusively. I incorporate them into my final wager. As any good, long term bettor does.

You might find it helpful to do some unbiased assessment and research when betting. Stats can be very useful. 
Sorry that you find the time to post your fan based opinions, but not to look up data driven, objective, relevant info.

Good luck.


 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by mellow_wolf:


No. I don't use them exclusively. I incorporate them into my final wager. As any good, long term bettor does.

You might find it helpful to do some unbiased assessment and research when betting. Stats can be very useful. 
Sorry that you find the time to post your fan based opinions, but not to look up data driven, objective, relevant info.

Good luck.


 

"Sorry that you find the time to post your fan based opinions, but not to look up data driven, objective, relevant info"

 

Once again, I DIDNT BRING UP THE STATS OF FAN BASED OPINIONS.

Many people CONTINUED to bring up how SFs defense is SO GREAT because they are ranked #4 and I should "discount double check my info"

I simply replied with SF playing against 13 teams who rank in the bottom half in offense. 

Thats a FACT, not a fan based opinion.  I didnt create the stat. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #70
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:

 

"Sorry that you find the time to post your fan based opinions, but not to look up data driven, objective, relevant info"

 

Once again, I DIDNT BRING UP THE STATS OF FAN BASED OPINIONS.

Many people CONTINUED to bring up how SFs defense is SO GREAT because they are ranked #4 and I should "discount double check my info"

I simply replied with SF playing against 13 teams who rank in the bottom half in offense. 

Thats a FACT, not a fan based opinion.  I didnt create the stat. 


No need to get defensive. You do not understand what I am trying to impart. It's ok. Some just don't get it.

By the way, the basic and mainly useless stats you are giving out are wrong anyway. It's 11 not 13 teams, if you actually counted correctly.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 2304
Posted: #71
LETGOPACK1234, this is a sports wagering forum, not a Green Bay Packers fan forum 

I have heard about Football Outsiders, but primarily used Pro Football Focus in the past. Thanks for getting me to look into it last week Mellow, it's definitely something useful I will incorporate into my capping in the future. Especially liked the AFC/NFC Wildcard Previews. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 3676
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by nepatriots_12:

LETGOPACK1234, this is a sports wagering forum, not a Green Bay Packers fan forum 

I have heard about Football Outsiders, but primarily used Pro Football Focus in the past. Thanks for getting me to look into it last week Mellow, it's definitely something useful I will incorporate into my capping in the future. Especially liked the AFC/NFC Wildcard Previews. 


It's been helpful. It assimilates a lot of data and variables into a very comprehensive database. Certainly worth a look to anyone who is interested in statistics as a factor in their wagering.

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2011
Posts: 12243
Posted: #73
Quote Originally Posted by nepatriots_12:

LETGOPACK1234, this is a sports wagering forum, not a Green Bay Packers fan forum 

I have heard about Football Outsiders, but primarily used Pro Football Focus in the past. Thanks for getting me to look into it last week Mellow, it's definitely something useful I will incorporate into my capping in the future. Especially liked the AFC/NFC Wildcard Previews. 

 

"LETGOPACK1234, this is a sports wagering forum, not a Green Bay Packers fan forum "

 

Ummmm.....I am pretty sure this is a Sf/GB thread last time I checked

Thanks for the reminder, thus why I keep my GB discussion in threads that involve the GB Packers

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2012
Posts: 122
Posted: #74
sf gave problems to 4 out top 5 qbs pass happy teams
rodgers week1     WIN   held them to 2 total tds and bs punt rt.
stafford week2    WIN   230 yds 1td 1int all in garb. time 
eli        week6      loss   15/28 193   1td
brees    week 12  WIN   3int   2for tds  
brady   week15    WIN  2int  68.7qbr dominated most game     
so there capable of facing great passing teams GB1234
 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 88
Posted: #75
Why Green Bay Will Lose at SF:

1. GROUND GAME
San Fran has a far better running game than GB. They took care of them already this season in GB, and that was without a mobile QB- a new wrinkle GB now has to prepare for. This will limit Aaron Rogers time on the field, and grind clock.

2. O-No O Line
GB is 31st in the league, allowing 4.2 sacks per game on the road. Gonna be hard to keep Rogers upright, and with a limited run game, you know they will have to have Rogers throwing often to keep them in this game.

3. Justin Smith?
If he does return the way he is supposed to, expect him to make life even more difficult as he is a key asset to 49ers pass rush. Might not get a lot of sacks but he keeps things chaotic and forces QBs to make mistakes.

4. Look to the Past
In their previous meeting, GB had ONE offensive touchdown, and it came with 6 minutes left in the 4th quarter when the game was well out of reach. The 9ers will be ready for this one, and Harbaugh's postseason record at home speaks for itself.

My only concerns with this game are Kapernick being jittery as it his first playoff start. GB also gained 324 yards in their loss to SF at home, but failed to put up many points. Rogers will have to be near flawless, cuz this SF offense is nothing like Minnesota's anemic Joe Webb lead team.
All Forums | NFL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

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.