Posted:
#26
Quote Originally Posted by suuma:
The absurd thing about this regression approach for the Giants game is: If the Cowboys would have lost in OT against the Texans last year, which would have made them a 11-5 team rather than 12-4, he wouldn't bet the Giants, because the pythagorean differential would be too low.
Or if the Giants would have held the lead against the 2-14 Jaguars rather than blowing a 21-0 lead (indication for being a bad team?), he wouldn't bet the Giants.
The absurd thing about this regression approach for the Giants game is: If the Cowboys would have lost in OT against the Texans last year, which would have made them a 11-5 team rather than 12-4, he wouldn't bet the Giants, because the pythagorean differential would be too low.
Or if the Giants would have held the lead against the 2-14 Jaguars rather than blowing a 21-0 lead (indication for being a bad team?), he wouldn't bet the Giants.
Did you HAVE to bring that game up Suuma???? 
I look up and down the week1 lines and this line is by far the most confounding. I expected -7.5, not -5.5!
I have no idea how the Giants are going to defend the pass. Their secondary is absolutely horrific.
Then you have all the unanswered questions nahaww brought up.
I feel like the Giants are as shaky as they were last year when they implemented the West Coast offense and went out in week 1, also on the road, and got smashed by the Lions.
0
Hot Forum Topics
