BOUNCE FACTOR..............................1-0, won 5 units
Jags +3.5 (-120) over Eagles --- 6 units to win 5 units
we have 1 more play but wait-out the line.
Jags are struggling big time, seems some controversy in the locker room which is a good thing as shows players want to win, they do not go away accepting losing.
Seems the problem is TO's for one, 17 TO to def getting just 5 = -12, ouch, gonna be tough to finish with a winning record doing that .
Last season 23 -33 = +10. Common though for teams +10 and over to regress the next year. But Jags really regressed.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
BOUNCE FACTOR..............................1-0, won 5 units
Jags +3.5 (-120) over Eagles --- 6 units to win 5 units
we have 1 more play but wait-out the line.
Jags are struggling big time, seems some controversy in the locker room which is a good thing as shows players want to win, they do not go away accepting losing.
Seems the problem is TO's for one, 17 TO to def getting just 5 = -12, ouch, gonna be tough to finish with a winning record doing that .
Last season 23 -33 = +10. Common though for teams +10 and over to regress the next year. But Jags really regressed.
The Jags were supposed to bounce back against Houston and yet managed to look even worse.With the defence underperforming and Bortles being Bortles it makes trusting the Jags difficult. I wouldn't put money on them until they right the ship
0
The Jags were supposed to bounce back against Houston and yet managed to look even worse.With the defence underperforming and Bortles being Bortles it makes trusting the Jags difficult. I wouldn't put money on them until they right the ship
I want to point out that controversy in the locker room is not a good thing. By default players want to win even when they play for bad teams. Distractions are detrimental to team chemistry.
0
Claw,
I want to point out that controversy in the locker room is not a good thing. By default players want to win even when they play for bad teams. Distractions are detrimental to team chemistry.
I want to point out that controversy in the locker room is not a good thing. By default players want to win even when they play for bad teams. Distractions are detrimental to team chemistry.
Based on history I disagree.
0
Quote Originally Posted by EZmoney25:
Claw,
I want to point out that controversy in the locker room is not a good thing. By default players want to win even when they play for bad teams. Distractions are detrimental to team chemistry.
The Jags were supposed to bounce back against Houston and yet managed to look even worse.With the defence underperforming and Bortles being Bortles it makes trusting the Jags difficult. I wouldn't put money on them until they right the ship
Value lies in picking the right spot to bounce back before they right the ship, after righting the ship reduces line value.
0
Quote Originally Posted by EZmoney25:
The Jags were supposed to bounce back against Houston and yet managed to look even worse.With the defence underperforming and Bortles being Bortles it makes trusting the Jags difficult. I wouldn't put money on them until they right the ship
Value lies in picking the right spot to bounce back before they right the ship, after righting the ship reduces line value.
And the Pats still win by 7, by the most uncappable of means. 2 special teams td's.
GL this week
Not sure where you came up with that, QBR is from ESPN I believe, no clue what or how it measures anything or what the correlation to winning is or the predictive value.
QBPR has the highest correlation to winning and the highest predictive value looking forward.
AVE per pass is good also but not in QBPR's league.
Pats were 108.2 to Bears 69.8 = 34.2, that is a pretty good beatdown, few teams will win losing QBPR by that much.
PATS WERE 7.7 to Bears 6.7 = 1 ave per pass before sacks.
with sacks Pats get better, 7.4 to 6.1 = 1.3
Losing both those battlers by that much is about the kiss of death, you'd need to win TO battle by at least 2 and the rushing battle fairly big .
0
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Trubisky 83 qbr, 9.8 ypp
Brady 78 qbr, 9.9 ypp
Bears 5.4 ypr
Pats 4 ypr
And the Pats still win by 7, by the most uncappable of means. 2 special teams td's.
GL this week
Not sure where you came up with that, QBR is from ESPN I believe, no clue what or how it measures anything or what the correlation to winning is or the predictive value.
QBPR has the highest correlation to winning and the highest predictive value looking forward.
AVE per pass is good also but not in QBPR's league.
Pats were 108.2 to Bears 69.8 = 34.2, that is a pretty good beatdown, few teams will win losing QBPR by that much.
PATS WERE 7.7 to Bears 6.7 = 1 ave per pass before sacks.
with sacks Pats get better, 7.4 to 6.1 = 1.3
Losing both those battlers by that much is about the kiss of death, you'd need to win TO battle by at least 2 and the rushing battle fairly big .
Not sure where you came up with that, QBR is from ESPN I believe, no clue what or how it measures anything or what the correlation to winning is or the predictive value.
QBPR has the highest correlation to winning and the highest predictive value looking forward.
AVE per pass is good also but not in QBPR's league.
Pats were 108.2 to Bears 69.8 = 34.2, that is a pretty good beatdown, few teams will win losing QBPR by that much.
PATS WERE 7.7 to Bears 6.7 = 1 ave per pass before sacks.
with sacks Pats get better, 7.4 to 6.1 = 1.3
Losing both those battlers by that much is about the kiss of death, you'd need to win TO battle by at least 2 and the rushing battle fairly big .
What is QBPR and where can I find it, please? Thanks!
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Not sure where you came up with that, QBR is from ESPN I believe, no clue what or how it measures anything or what the correlation to winning is or the predictive value.
QBPR has the highest correlation to winning and the highest predictive value looking forward.
AVE per pass is good also but not in QBPR's league.
Pats were 108.2 to Bears 69.8 = 34.2, that is a pretty good beatdown, few teams will win losing QBPR by that much.
PATS WERE 7.7 to Bears 6.7 = 1 ave per pass before sacks.
with sacks Pats get better, 7.4 to 6.1 = 1.3
Losing both those battlers by that much is about the kiss of death, you'd need to win TO battle by at least 2 and the rushing battle fairly big .
What is QBPR and where can I find it, please? Thanks!
The Jags had Carlos Hyde and Jamaal Charles...only used Charles for one carry...wtf? Hyde was healthy...what is going on with the Jags? Christ they can't run the ball, and Bortles breaks out into St. Vitus Dance on game day?
0
The Jags had Carlos Hyde and Jamaal Charles...only used Charles for one carry...wtf? Hyde was healthy...what is going on with the Jags? Christ they can't run the ball, and Bortles breaks out into St. Vitus Dance on game day?
Maybe to win the division but at this point don't see much else.
They are out-played in QBPR by 6 pts, both off and def below league ave..
Unless you dominate the rushing battle which they don't, maybe they get to 10 wins about tops.
Based on at this point, teams can make big improvements, Watson could explode over next few games, based on last year maybe he could but not doing it this year at this point.
0
Quote Originally Posted by buffer:
Texans still the team to beat
Maybe to win the division but at this point don't see much else.
They are out-played in QBPR by 6 pts, both off and def below league ave..
Unless you dominate the rushing battle which they don't, maybe they get to 10 wins about tops.
Based on at this point, teams can make big improvements, Watson could explode over next few games, based on last year maybe he could but not doing it this year at this point.
The Jags had Carlos Hyde and Jamaal Charles...only used Charles for one carry...wtf? Hyde was healthy...what is going on with the Jags? Christ they can't run the ball, and Bortles breaks out into St. Vitus Dance on game day?
No team looks good going into regression mode that reguires some extreme games, Jags lost a couple, but those games will cause them to really bring their best effort, with great focus and energy to right the ship.
0
Quote Originally Posted by lancer89074:
The Jags had Carlos Hyde and Jamaal Charles...only used Charles for one carry...wtf? Hyde was healthy...what is going on with the Jags? Christ they can't run the ball, and Bortles breaks out into St. Vitus Dance on game day?
No team looks good going into regression mode that reguires some extreme games, Jags lost a couple, but those games will cause them to really bring their best effort, with great focus and energy to right the ship.
Yea, may prove to be big. Looks from a number of sites the line was dropping , was hoping maybe to get to 4 but the way line was dropping taking the hook now was right way to go.
0
Quote Originally Posted by WussieMan:
Nice hook.
Yea, may prove to be big. Looks from a number of sites the line was dropping , was hoping maybe to get to 4 but the way line was dropping taking the hook now was right way to go.
BOUNCE FACTOR..............................1-0, won 5 units
Jags +3.5 (-120) over Eagles --- 6 units to win 5 units
we have 1 more play but wait-out the line.
Jags are struggling big time, seems some controversy in the locker room which is a good thing as shows players want to win, they do not go away accepting losing.
Seems the problem is TO's for one, 17 TO to def getting just 5 = -12, ouch, gonna be tough to finish with a winning record doing that .
Last season 23 -33 = +10. Common though for teams +10 and over to regress the next year. But Jags really regressed.
Broncos +10 (-115) over Chiefs --- 5.75 units to win 5 units
0
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
BOUNCE FACTOR..............................1-0, won 5 units
Jags +3.5 (-120) over Eagles --- 6 units to win 5 units
we have 1 more play but wait-out the line.
Jags are struggling big time, seems some controversy in the locker room which is a good thing as shows players want to win, they do not go away accepting losing.
Seems the problem is TO's for one, 17 TO to def getting just 5 = -12, ouch, gonna be tough to finish with a winning record doing that .
Last season 23 -33 = +10. Common though for teams +10 and over to regress the next year. But Jags really regressed.
Broncos +10 (-115) over Chiefs --- 5.75 units to win 5 units
Claw Im sure your now seeing what Im seeing with this Texans team. Im sure your perspective about them winning the Super Bowl has drastically changed.
Now they are showing signs of life and have the look of a strong team, but it is only 1 game. My perspective won't drastically change because of 1 game.
They won the QBPR huge, 90 pts over Brock and 77 when you factor in the receiver pass for a TD.
And they won ave per pass huge, and had very good balance but they'll need more of those type games before you can get to excited about them.
Most likely they will regress, that is not sustainable and having won 5 straight might be better to judge them after they regress and see where they sit.
0
Quote Originally Posted by buffer:
Claw Im sure your now seeing what Im seeing with this Texans team. Im sure your perspective about them winning the Super Bowl has drastically changed.
Now they are showing signs of life and have the look of a strong team, but it is only 1 game. My perspective won't drastically change because of 1 game.
They won the QBPR huge, 90 pts over Brock and 77 when you factor in the receiver pass for a TD.
And they won ave per pass huge, and had very good balance but they'll need more of those type games before you can get to excited about them.
Most likely they will regress, that is not sustainable and having won 5 straight might be better to judge them after they regress and see where they sit.
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
