GB's o-line has been shakey lately. Rodgers could be running around a lot, but with his receivers all healthy now he should be able to score 3+ tds. I'm liking the over.
Cobb didn't look like himself against Minny, and Jordy Nelson got shaken up again... I wouldn't consider them completely healthy
0
Quote Originally Posted by StoneColdNinja:
GB's o-line has been shakey lately. Rodgers could be running around a lot, but with his receivers all healthy now he should be able to score 3+ tds. I'm liking the over.
Cobb didn't look like himself against Minny, and Jordy Nelson got shaken up again... I wouldn't consider them completely healthy
Cobb didn't look like himself against Minny, and Jordy Nelson got shaken up again... I wouldn't consider them completely healthy
Thats a pretty subjective statement to make to define the health of the Packers. How many receivers do the Packers need to be considered 'healthy?" James, Jennings, Finley and Cobb are enough for me. darn it...throw Crabtree in there and you have a full house.
0
Quote Originally Posted by GMoney247:
Cobb didn't look like himself against Minny, and Jordy Nelson got shaken up again... I wouldn't consider them completely healthy
Thats a pretty subjective statement to make to define the health of the Packers. How many receivers do the Packers need to be considered 'healthy?" James, Jennings, Finley and Cobb are enough for me. darn it...throw Crabtree in there and you have a full house.
The line opened up at SF -3.5 +105 on pinnacle within 30 minutes down to -3 -115, Now sits at -3 +106, The sharps seem real confident in SF.
I know Green Bay has 61 % on covers consensus and you have this wannabe contrarian mentality where anything that looks square you won't touch but i've got news for you, Sometimes the square bet wins, Plus it can't be too square when you have everyone on this forum agreeing with you regards to SF.
Betting on a rookie QB making his first play off start against a side that is in the play offs year in year out, Really smart and not at all risky.
0
The line opened up at SF -3.5 +105 on pinnacle within 30 minutes down to -3 -115, Now sits at -3 +106, The sharps seem real confident in SF.
I know Green Bay has 61 % on covers consensus and you have this wannabe contrarian mentality where anything that looks square you won't touch but i've got news for you, Sometimes the square bet wins, Plus it can't be too square when you have everyone on this forum agreeing with you regards to SF.
Betting on a rookie QB making his first play off start against a side that is in the play offs year in year out, Really smart and not at all risky.
Thats a pretty subjective statement to make to define the health of the Packers. How many receivers do the Packers need to be considered 'healthy?" James, Jennings, Finley and Cobb are enough for me. darn it...throw Crabtree in there and you have a full house.
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
0
Quote Originally Posted by amd:
Thats a pretty subjective statement to make to define the health of the Packers. How many receivers do the Packers need to be considered 'healthy?" James, Jennings, Finley and Cobb are enough for me. darn it...throw Crabtree in there and you have a full house.
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
The line opened up at SF -3.5 +105 on pinnacle within 30 minutes down to -3 -115, Now sits at -3 +106, The sharps seem real confident in SF.
I know Green Bay has 61 % on covers consensus and you have this wannabe contrarian mentality where anything that looks square you won't touch but i've got news for you, Sometimes the square bet wins, Plus it can't be too square when you have everyone on this forum agreeing with you regards to SF.
Betting on a rookie QB making his first play off start against a side that is in the play offs year in year out, Really smart and not at all risky.
Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut... Russell Wilson made his first playoff start on the road and looked pretty good so i guess the Seattle backers were not very smart huh? Home start in the playoffs much easier than road start, plust the best defense in football makes it that much easier on Kaep
0
Quote Originally Posted by SwishSwish1234:
The line opened up at SF -3.5 +105 on pinnacle within 30 minutes down to -3 -115, Now sits at -3 +106, The sharps seem real confident in SF.
I know Green Bay has 61 % on covers consensus and you have this wannabe contrarian mentality where anything that looks square you won't touch but i've got news for you, Sometimes the square bet wins, Plus it can't be too square when you have everyone on this forum agreeing with you regards to SF.
Betting on a rookie QB making his first play off start against a side that is in the play offs year in year out, Really smart and not at all risky.
Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut... Russell Wilson made his first playoff start on the road and looked pretty good so i guess the Seattle backers were not very smart huh? Home start in the playoffs much easier than road start, plust the best defense in football makes it that much easier on Kaep
Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut... Russell Wilson made his first playoff start on the road and looked pretty good so i guess the Seattle backers were not very smart huh? Home start in the playoffs much easier than road start, plust the best defense in football makes it that much easier on Kaep
"Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut.."
Can you name other teams that have been 4 years in a row during this time???
Without looking it up, Im guessing just NE....maybe Atl....its not that easy to do
0
Quote Originally Posted by GMoney247:
Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut... Russell Wilson made his first playoff start on the road and looked pretty good so i guess the Seattle backers were not very smart huh? Home start in the playoffs much easier than road start, plust the best defense in football makes it that much easier on Kaep
"Packers have been in playoffs 4 years in a row with 2 of them going one and done, so lets not make it like the pack is some juggernaut.."
Can you name other teams that have been 4 years in a row during this time???
Without looking it up, Im guessing just NE....maybe Atl....its not that easy to do
Books already showing their hand. GB +3 is dead money.
SF to the NFC Championship, bank on it
Just a question but why do you create these threads and not elaborate on the matter? I respect your angles and have used your threads as good starting points this year. I feel you ignore talent a little too much, but I dont see a talent angle in this matchup so am anxious to hear your angles on this one.
0
Quote Originally Posted by LeagueCapper:
Books already showing their hand. GB +3 is dead money.
SF to the NFC Championship, bank on it
Just a question but why do you create these threads and not elaborate on the matter? I respect your angles and have used your threads as good starting points this year. I feel you ignore talent a little too much, but I dont see a talent angle in this matchup so am anxious to hear your angles on this one.
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
I see your point and maybe your right about the Packers not being healthy but I'm not putting much stock into evaluating the health of their team based on catches/gm. Most statistics are dictated by schemes and matchups. Vernon Davis, for example, is the best catching TE in the league as well as the best overall TE in the league but how many catches does he have over the last 3 weeks? .....and, Davis is "healthy".
Regarding your statement about SF being the best defensive team in the league....are you saying that because it's trendy to say or do you really stand by that statement? They've given up more than 20 points in 6 games this season while being in the bottom half of the league in turnovers with only 26. As well, they've played the Rams and Cardinals over a 4 week period so defensive rankings can certainly become a bit skewed. I'm more interested in takeaways and 3rd down conversion%
0
Quote Originally Posted by GMoney247:
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
I see your point and maybe your right about the Packers not being healthy but I'm not putting much stock into evaluating the health of their team based on catches/gm. Most statistics are dictated by schemes and matchups. Vernon Davis, for example, is the best catching TE in the league as well as the best overall TE in the league but how many catches does he have over the last 3 weeks? .....and, Davis is "healthy".
Regarding your statement about SF being the best defensive team in the league....are you saying that because it's trendy to say or do you really stand by that statement? They've given up more than 20 points in 6 games this season while being in the bottom half of the league in turnovers with only 26. As well, they've played the Rams and Cardinals over a 4 week period so defensive rankings can certainly become a bit skewed. I'm more interested in takeaways and 3rd down conversion%
Absurd post. To say that the Packers, who have one of the best offenses in football - have NO chance this weekend. If that were the case, the line would be -7 and not -3 (which, if you followed football, you would know equates to the home field advantage that Vegas applies in betting situation - which means Vegas believes these teams are even on a neutral field.
Clearly, you know nothing about capping.
And while I hate to say it - CK looked ordinary the last few weeks. Rodgers is anything but ordinary.
Good luck betting your mortgage (since this is a can't lose game for you - you have to bet it all) on CK.
0
Absurd post. To say that the Packers, who have one of the best offenses in football - have NO chance this weekend. If that were the case, the line would be -7 and not -3 (which, if you followed football, you would know equates to the home field advantage that Vegas applies in betting situation - which means Vegas believes these teams are even on a neutral field.
Clearly, you know nothing about capping.
And while I hate to say it - CK looked ordinary the last few weeks. Rodgers is anything but ordinary.
Good luck betting your mortgage (since this is a can't lose game for you - you have to bet it all) on CK.
Right....all these tough guys with a keyboard...so pathetic
You all come in my threads, or post in threads I comment in with insults and act so tough....youre pathetic.
If you dont agree with me move on, I dont agree with you...I dont try to insult you and insult your team.
You little trolls are a joke.
Maybe the Giants would have beat Gb in the playoffs, we wont know this year. Unlike GB, after winning a championship they failed to even qualify for the playoffs.
My team is still in it and thats good enough for me.
If they lose, they lose. Still impressive with back-to-back final four NFC games after winning a championship.
Amusing, guy creates a thread saying GB has NO chance because the line says it all.
Its -3 at home. I disagree, and I am the homer tool.....got it
You tough guy and your big words with key strokes and intelligence are pathetic
You guys sound like a buch of high school girls!!! You dont have to win a debate to win your bet. The winner will be decided on the field and your book will pay you. Only thing I can say is bet with caution SF beat GB week 1 with Smith not a rookie and it wasnt a playoff game. Rodgers will find a way to win. You might see Alex if it gets ugly.
0
Quote Originally Posted by LETGOPACK1234:
Right....all these tough guys with a keyboard...so pathetic
You all come in my threads, or post in threads I comment in with insults and act so tough....youre pathetic.
If you dont agree with me move on, I dont agree with you...I dont try to insult you and insult your team.
You little trolls are a joke.
Maybe the Giants would have beat Gb in the playoffs, we wont know this year. Unlike GB, after winning a championship they failed to even qualify for the playoffs.
My team is still in it and thats good enough for me.
If they lose, they lose. Still impressive with back-to-back final four NFC games after winning a championship.
Amusing, guy creates a thread saying GB has NO chance because the line says it all.
Its -3 at home. I disagree, and I am the homer tool.....got it
You tough guy and your big words with key strokes and intelligence are pathetic
You guys sound like a buch of high school girls!!! You dont have to win a debate to win your bet. The winner will be decided on the field and your book will pay you. Only thing I can say is bet with caution SF beat GB week 1 with Smith not a rookie and it wasnt a playoff game. Rodgers will find a way to win. You might see Alex if it gets ugly.
I see your point and maybe your right about the Packers not being healthy but I'm not putting much stock into evaluating the health of their team based on catches/gm. Most statistics are dictated by schemes and matchups. Vernon Davis, for example, is the best catching TE in the league as well as the best overall TE in the league but how many catches does he have over the last 3 weeks? .....and, Davis is "healthy".
Regarding your statement about SF being the best defensive team in the league....are you saying that because it's trendy to say or do you really stand by that statement? They've given up more than 20 points in 6 games this season while being in the bottom half of the league in turnovers with only 26. As well, they've played the Rams and Cardinals over a 4 week period so defensive rankings can certainly become a bit skewed. I'm more interested in takeaways and 3rd down conversion%
Exactly....stats can be very DECEIVING
Yes, SF has a very good, great defense...fast, strong physical....
But...
If you look that their schedule, they played for few above average qbs...
Of their 16 games, 5 were against teams in the top 15 in scoring this year
I mean 8, 50% of their games were against:
Zona and St Louis twice who cant score, Sanchez, Miami and Buff with bad offenses and a Bears backup....
Thats 8 games against very poor offenses.....
When HALF your games are against bad offenses, you should have good defensive numbers
0
Quote Originally Posted by amd:
I see your point and maybe your right about the Packers not being healthy but I'm not putting much stock into evaluating the health of their team based on catches/gm. Most statistics are dictated by schemes and matchups. Vernon Davis, for example, is the best catching TE in the league as well as the best overall TE in the league but how many catches does he have over the last 3 weeks? .....and, Davis is "healthy".
Regarding your statement about SF being the best defensive team in the league....are you saying that because it's trendy to say or do you really stand by that statement? They've given up more than 20 points in 6 games this season while being in the bottom half of the league in turnovers with only 26. As well, they've played the Rams and Cardinals over a 4 week period so defensive rankings can certainly become a bit skewed. I'm more interested in takeaways and 3rd down conversion%
Exactly....stats can be very DECEIVING
Yes, SF has a very good, great defense...fast, strong physical....
But...
If you look that their schedule, they played for few above average qbs...
Of their 16 games, 5 were against teams in the top 15 in scoring this year
I mean 8, 50% of their games were against:
Zona and St Louis twice who cant score, Sanchez, Miami and Buff with bad offenses and a Bears backup....
Thats 8 games against very poor offenses.....
When HALF your games are against bad offenses, you should have good defensive numbers
You guys sound like a buch of high school girls!!! You dont have to win a debate to win your bet. The winner will be decided on the field and your book will pay you. Only thing I can say is bet with caution SF beat GB week 1 with Smith not a rookie and it wasnt a playoff game. Rodgers will find a way to win. You might see Alex if it gets ugly.
I agree, but these same trolls keep at me in threads. Its pathetic. All because they disagree with me or are Giant fans??? Come on.
Then, they all say they get mad because I use ""
Really??? You are bothered by emoticons??? What are you 4???
They claim I am annoying and bla bla bla, yet they continue to start garbage everytime....seems like they are the ones with the issues
0
Quote Originally Posted by packerfan1102:
You guys sound like a buch of high school girls!!! You dont have to win a debate to win your bet. The winner will be decided on the field and your book will pay you. Only thing I can say is bet with caution SF beat GB week 1 with Smith not a rookie and it wasnt a playoff game. Rodgers will find a way to win. You might see Alex if it gets ugly.
I agree, but these same trolls keep at me in threads. Its pathetic. All because they disagree with me or are Giant fans??? Come on.
Then, they all say they get mad because I use ""
Really??? You are bothered by emoticons??? What are you 4???
They claim I am annoying and bla bla bla, yet they continue to start garbage everytime....seems like they are the ones with the issues
Packers lost in the run game week one and turn over ratio -1, but beat SF in passing YDS. After stopping the #1 RB in NFL last week that gives me confidence they can do it again against Gore (average RB). Packers avenge themselves this week and Kaepernick needs a diaper change. Harbaugh makes a big mistake playing a rookie QB in the playoffs. Packers by 10+ GL
0
Packers lost in the run game week one and turn over ratio -1, but beat SF in passing YDS. After stopping the #1 RB in NFL last week that gives me confidence they can do it again against Gore (average RB). Packers avenge themselves this week and Kaepernick needs a diaper change. Harbaugh makes a big mistake playing a rookie QB in the playoffs. Packers by 10+ GL
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
If I remember correctly, Rodgers passed the ball to 10 different receivers (including tight ends) last week. Cobb is probably his 4th best receiver, he only started to have good games when other receivers were getting injured. Now that the other receivers are healthy again, he falls down in the pecking order. I might be the only but, I consider TEs as receivers also.
0
Quote Originally Posted by GMoney247:
Cobb had 1 catch for 4 yards... I dont think thats subjective at all... Finley and Crabtree are actually TE's so if I said pass catchers then yeah you could bring them up... if nelson isn't healthy and cobb is slowed by ankle then you got jennings and james jones, so thats not healthy
If I remember correctly, Rodgers passed the ball to 10 different receivers (including tight ends) last week. Cobb is probably his 4th best receiver, he only started to have good games when other receivers were getting injured. Now that the other receivers are healthy again, he falls down in the pecking order. I might be the only but, I consider TEs as receivers also.
"Green Bay has no chance this weekend." Uh-huh, sure dude!! And the Buffalo Bills had "no chance down 32 points 20 years ago in the 3rd quarter of a wild card game, right? That statement sums up perhaps one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. Ironically, I am with you that the Niners will win by pounding it, playing stellar D, and taking advantage of the home crowd. But your post is arrogant and foolish because the Pack has the ability offensively to pull away from ANYONE in the league. Add to it that Clay Matthews and Woodson are difference makers and it only takes a turn over or two to change the entire complexion of a game. Good luck.
0
"Green Bay has no chance this weekend." Uh-huh, sure dude!! And the Buffalo Bills had "no chance down 32 points 20 years ago in the 3rd quarter of a wild card game, right? That statement sums up perhaps one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. Ironically, I am with you that the Niners will win by pounding it, playing stellar D, and taking advantage of the home crowd. But your post is arrogant and foolish because the Pack has the ability offensively to pull away from ANYONE in the league. Add to it that Clay Matthews and Woodson are difference makers and it only takes a turn over or two to change the entire complexion of a game. Good luck.
NINERS HAVE THE MATCHUP EDGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL. NINERS CAN AND WILL RUN ON THE PACK CHEWING UP THE CLOCK. WATCH HOW KAP IS USED IN HIGH PERCENTAGE PASS PLAYS AND READ OPTION, THE GUY CAN FLY.
WHEN GB HAS THE BALL, SFS RUN D WILL FORCE THE PACK TO PASS. BEING PREDICTABLE IN THE NFL IS NOT GOOD ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE GOING AGAINST ARGUABLY THE BEST DEFENSE IN FOOTBALL.
RODGERS WILL HAVE TO SCRAMBLE AND PLAY OUT OF HIS MIND IN ORDER TO WIN AT THE STICK. . . NINERS -3
0
NINERS HAVE THE MATCHUP EDGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL. NINERS CAN AND WILL RUN ON THE PACK CHEWING UP THE CLOCK. WATCH HOW KAP IS USED IN HIGH PERCENTAGE PASS PLAYS AND READ OPTION, THE GUY CAN FLY.
WHEN GB HAS THE BALL, SFS RUN D WILL FORCE THE PACK TO PASS. BEING PREDICTABLE IN THE NFL IS NOT GOOD ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE GOING AGAINST ARGUABLY THE BEST DEFENSE IN FOOTBALL.
RODGERS WILL HAVE TO SCRAMBLE AND PLAY OUT OF HIS MIND IN ORDER TO WIN AT THE STICK. . . NINERS -3
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.
You dont have to win a debate to win your bet. The winner will be decided on the field and your book will pay you. Only thing I can say is bet with caution SF beat GB week 1 with Smith not a rookie and it wasnt a playoff game. Rodgers will find a way to win. You might see Alex if it gets ugly.
"
Hot Forum Topics
