garbagetime

I will have two on Sunday.

I waited because I was traveling out of the country without a signal a lot of the time, and was also not sure whether I'd take three, two or one of them. So I got Seattle +2. I thought all three might lengthen in odds, actually.

The funny thing about it is how often we sweat this line or that line, when we know the line only matters one in five times. You culd have driven yourself crazy over Dallas +4 or +3.5, or Commandos +4 or +3.5, and it simply didn't matter. And funnier even is that the Commanders did everything in their power to throw away the game, three fumbles by Robinson, two picks, all sorts of crap, and in the end, with 10 seconds left, they weren't going to win or cover, and then four seconds later, they had won and covered. This is why I say all the time that results are random and can't be capped with any certainty.

Straight up, 2-1 on the day

They only have to lose by three at home to a division rival. They may not be able in general, and they may not be able to stop Saquon in particular, but this is why it's called gambling.

Trundling along at plus-one unit on the season, mainly because I tailed theclaw some (although not enough!), so I'm inclined to take the points just in case 16-17 is the result.

The better team is the away team in all three, but Seattle has receivers who can go get it too, Phil-Was is a key division matchup and so 4 points is nice to have, and Tampa...well, I figure Dallas will manage to save McCarthy's job, the idiots.

I've taken all three, Wash +4 now and Seattle +2. Late-season home dogs don't look like a play this season, but I'm hoping this long-term strategy reasserts itself.

I had to go back into my laptop's really old folders to find an Excel doc I'd made in 2005 about the previous five seasons of NFL data. Can't remember the name of the website that at that time produced weekly roundups in which they called out "false final score" games. They never followed up to see how these teams fared the following week, but I did, SU and ATS.

The big surprise was that it barely mattered whether a team had won or lost a FFS game (I think it's hilarious to use this shorthand, for f's sake). Here's how it broke down:

Winners SU 59% in their next game, 49% ATS

Losers SU 62% in their next game, 52% ATS

Teams that lost did better in their next game than teams that had won, which makes sense to me.

What jumped out was whether they were favored or not in their followup:

Either team favored in their next game, 43% ATS

Either team an underdog in their next game, 55% ATS (home dogs 59%)

My recollection is that teams that lost a false final score game (so, in other words, they lost a game where the stats say they should have won) tended to cover large spreads the following week. The market thought they'd bounce back, and they did.

I wrote down three Sunday night that seemed decent:

Washington +3.5 v Philadelphia

Seattle +3 v Minnesota

Dallas +4 v Tampa Bay

I feel like all three visiting teams are due a drop in production, and at least two of the home teams are super motivated. I was kind of hoping to see Seahawks and Commanders on Claw's list eventually (he did take Dallas).

Washington's actual line is +3.5, their teaser line would be +9.5/10

I can think of one reason to dislike the Rams: They're in the Westgate top five plays (29-36 on the season).

I would disagree on calling it a sandwich spot. SF and LAR both out of conference, and SF came in about as banged up as a team could be. I think for sure if you're ever going to oppose the Bills it's this week, with Lions next week and then three division games against chaff (NE, NYJ, NE). Their last sandwich spot was the Colts (between Miami and KC), which they covered.

If the point is to surprise someone, lighting a hundred candles and putting an arch of flowers together and waiting for the photographer's signal ain't the way to do it

I really hate this Instagram world 

With Drew Lock starting over the injured Tommy Cutlets, the Giants went from +3.5 -115 to +4 -105. Personally I'd rather see Lock out there, since he seems more like a professional athlete...he doesn't still live with his mom, for starters

But because they're the Bears... lol

I can imagine a scenario in which the Colts win out and tie the Texans at 10-7, but Houston beat them twice this season. And winning out means winning at Denver, their toughest matchup remaining. If they don't win out, Texans just need two wins for the division.

I think the Bears have suffered deflating loss after deflating loss all year, and over several years, but this one wasn't one of those games. They stayed with the Vikings just enough that they managed an incredible comeback late, and the OT wasn't a heartbreak. It wasn't like they lost on a last-second hail mary...again.

Obviously at 61% you're doing great, but I've wondered about the whole anchor thing, how you decide which is the most regressive side. Just pairing various candidates from your list, I wonder how you'd do. The clear drawback to the way you do it is that one anchor loss gives you a 0-19 on that side.

Not a twin peaks angle, no, which is 30+ and -10. Plenty of reasons that you can come up with to back Detroit, but this isn't one of them.

Wait, Saquon's level of play is unsustainable? :)

Because the lines reflect public opinion and are set to split the market. As we all know, a large class of bettors have a bias toward some teams (Cowboys, Packers) and some cities (NY) and some players (Rodgers). It takes a long time for them to realize what reality-based people have seen for a while now.