new record for NFL futility?


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

new record for NFL futility?

Postby gh » Tue Oct 08, 2013 7:35 am

Jacksonville is a 28-point dog to Denver this weekend; biggest spread ever for a pro game. (aka, crank up Peyton in your fantasy league!)
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby DrJay » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:38 am

Funny, in Denver this thread would be "New record for NFL dominance", "Denver is a 28 point fave over Jax this weekend, biggest spread ever for a pro game."

Our waitress at the airport pub in early Sept was a Ravens fan but has Manning as her fantasy league QB, but had benched him a few days earlier for the Broncos-Ravens game and he promptly threw for 7 TDs.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:38 am

gh wrote:Jacksonville is a 28-point dog to Denver this weekend; biggest spread ever for a pro game. (aka, crank up Peyton in your fantasy league!)

We're already hoping to stay in the tank, so we can take a quarterback . . . any quarterback, with the first pick. :oops:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Pego » Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:04 pm

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:Jacksonville is a 28-point dog to Denver this weekend; biggest spread ever for a pro game. (aka, crank up Peyton in your fantasy league!)

We're already hoping to stay in the tank, so we can take a quarterback . . . any quarterback, with the first pick. :oops:


There will be several good ones available. The trouble is that the Jaguars need a lot more than a QB. Would they pass on Clowney? Trade down?
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Dixon » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:54 pm

I have no problems seeing a 38-7 game at all.

As far as Clowney goes I don't like what we are seeing, if he can't deal with some pain he can forget the NFL.

I do wonder if he loves the game or not. Gotta love the game to make all those sacrifices.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby gh » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:26 am

Some talking heads on the radio the other day said that Clowney has no problems that wouldn't be cured if the NCAA paid its players.

Everybody in the NFL already knows what he's worth... healthy. If he can only drive his price down by getting hurt, back off a notch.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Dixon » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:36 am

gh wrote:Some talking heads on the radio the other day said that Clowney has no problems that wouldn't be cured if the NCAA paid its players.

Everybody in the NFL already knows what he's worth... healthy. If he can only drive his price down by getting hurt, back off a notch.


The worst thing any player can do it make it real obvious it's all about him. That sends out some very negative vibes. Everyone knows these players situation. But they still expect the players to win one for the Gipper. Owners want high character guys now more than ever, playing what Clowney is playing isn't good. He was brought to South Carolina to help them win games not audition for the NFL.

If he makes it, cool. But the NFL isn't what South Carolina and it's fans are concerned about.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:43 am

Dixon wrote:I have no problems seeing a 38-7 game at all.

Covering high spreads in the NFL has always been a problem, because the spread assumes they're both going all out. Typically the favored team does NOT go all out, to conserve themselves for the next week's (tougher) game. I'd bet the Jags to cover the spread (unless of course we're even WORSE than the spread indicates, which could well be the case!). Can we break Tampa' s 1976 record for haplessness?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Dixon » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:47 am

Marlow wrote:
Dixon wrote:I have no problems seeing a 38-7 game at all.

Covering high spreads in the NFL has always been a problem, because the spread assumes they're both going all out. Typically the favored team does NOT go all out, to conserve themselves for the next week's (tougher) game. I'd bet the Jags to cover the spread (unless of course we're even WORSE than the spread indicates, which could well be the case!). Can we break Tampa' s 1976 record for haplessness?


I wasn't talking about an all out Broncos team, if they really wanted to make some statement they could win this 50-0. These teams are that far apart as far as talent goes. 38-7 is a disinterested Denver team just playing football vs a really bad team.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:52 am

Dixon wrote:38-7 is a disinterested Denver team just playing football vs a really bad team.

I sincerely doubt that only because NFL players' livelihood depends on staying injury-free. In a game where nothing is on the line, they would be (sunconsciously at least) unwilling to make the plays that are needed in a blow-out like this. College students are not, which is why we see so many big blow-outs.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Dixon » Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:14 am

Marlow wrote:
Dixon wrote:38-7 is a disinterested Denver team just playing football vs a really bad team.

I sincerely doubt that only because NFL players' livelihood depends on staying injury-free. In a game where nothing is on the line, they would be (sunconsciously at least) unwilling to make the plays that are needed in a blow-out like this. College students are not, which is why we see so many big blow-outs.


Then there is simply the difference in talent level.I can see John Fox playing it cool however not wanting to embarrash anyone.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:27 am

Dixon wrote:Then there is simply the difference in talent level.I can see John Fox playing it cool however not wanting to embarrash anyone.

Yes, and Fox's attitude will be mirrored in the players' eyes, who don't want to make fellow pros look bad in a meaningless game.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 13, 2013 3:08 pm

Marlow wrote:
Dixon wrote:38-7 is a disinterested Denver team just playing football vs a really bad team.

I sincerely doubt that only because NFL players' livelihood depends on staying injury-free. In a game where nothing is on the line, they would be (sunconsciously at least) unwilling to make the plays that are needed in a blow-out like this. College students are not, which is why we see so many big blow-outs.

As I said, pros rarely cover the big spreads. 35-19.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Dixon » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:43 am

Marlow wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Dixon wrote:38-7 is a disinterested Denver team just playing football vs a really bad team.

I sincerely doubt that only because NFL players' livelihood depends on staying injury-free. In a game where nothing is on the line, they would be (sunconsciously at least) unwilling to make the plays that are needed in a blow-out like this. College students are not, which is why we see so many big blow-outs.

As I said, pros rarely cover the big spreads. 35-19.


Last season Denver was a 17 point home favorite vs KC, won by 35. I could go on and on, yes big spreads do get covered.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:20 am

Dixon wrote:Last season Denver was a 17 point home favorite vs KC, won by 35. I could go on and on, yes big spreads do get covered.


I would guess it happens close to half the time.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby Marlow » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:07 am

Dixon wrote:Last season Denver was a 17 point home favorite vs KC, won by 35. I could go on and on, yes big spreads do get covered.

No, I'm talking about historically big spreads. Go look at the history of 20+ point spreads in the NFL and how often they were covered. Report back.

[the answer is 1 time out out 10]
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: new record for NFL futility?

Postby gh » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:34 pm

<<There isn't a huge sample size to compare this game to, because OddsShark.com said there have been just eight instances of a NFL team being favored by 20 or more since 1990. Six of those times, the underdog lost but covered:>> And now it's 7.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron