| Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
replied to
***Macwesties * Thur. Dec. 10, 2025 * NFL * Week #15 * TNF * Football Play***
in NFL Betting Nice win. |
Macwestie1 | 36 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
My other system ..............10-7 My new BF II method ............. Both have a fade on Seahawks Colts +14 (-120) over Seahawks --- 1.2 units I'll put half a unit on each method. And Seahawks have a short week looking to playing the Rams Thursday night. Classic look-ahead spot here although Colts could be in a tough spot with their QB. But with 2 methods fading the Seahawks and a look-ahead spot on a short week the Colts looking in such tough shape might be perfect for Seahawks to over-look them. Play has to be Colts or no play. Jeff Sagarin makes SEA -6.48 at home hosting IND. I don't think Daniel Jones is worth 7 to 7.5 points more than whatever QB(s) IND will use. I haven't acted, but I like your IND play, TC. |
theclaw | 45 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness:
Sorry I couldn't get to all the messages. I was at the game. A better turnout of Chargers fans that I had thought. Not sure what was seen on TV. The cameras that point to the stands point to the visitor's side. My season tickets are on the home side and we were packed with Chargers side. Sadly I don't think the cameras reflect our side as much. More importantly, WHAT A GAME! You are correct. PHL committed 5 turnovers and were still in it until the final play. That is pretty damn rare. |
iConsciousness | 50 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by DogbiteWilliams:
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw: Got to hand it to the Bears, they did hang in there very tough till the end. I did have confidence Packers would stop them at the end. At the end of the day it was the weak-point of the Bears offense that cost them the game, the QB and the passing game. But Caleb made some incredible plays putting Bears in position. I was a bit surprised by that. The question is, will this game losing a close 1 score game be the start of the Bears regression back to not getting so lucky in these situations ? If Bears continue winning these close 1 score games and winning a number of games they will be coming into next season with many regression indicators to fade them next year. Similar to Wash this season and Texans the year before. Caleb Williams' completion percentage is a dreadful 57.8%; that is certainly fade material in a playoff game (hopefully as a juicy home favorite). TC, I should have also highlighted this cogent point in my previous post. Sorry about that omission. |
theclaw | 65 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Got to hand it to the Bears, they did hang in there very tough till the end. I did have confidence Packers would stop them at the end. At the end of the day it was the weak-point of the Bears offense that cost them the game, the QB and the passing game. But Caleb made some incredible plays putting Bears in position. I was a bit surprised by that. The question is, will this game losing a close 1 score game be the start of the Bears regression back to not getting so lucky in these situations ? If Bears continue winning these close 1 score games and winning a number of games they will be coming into next season with many regression indicators to fade them next year. Similar to Wash this season and Texans the year before.
Caleb Williams' completion percentage is a dreadful 57.8%; that is certainly fade material in a playoff game (hopefully as a juicy home favorite). |
theclaw | 65 |
|
|
Congratulations. |
Lucky Luciano | 5 |
|
|
TC, you can check the Covers consensus by going to the top of this page and clicking on Sports/NFL/Scores and Matchups. Currently CHI is at 61%; that's a huge public dog of which public handicappers have been leery. HOU is currently at 49%; not quite a public dog, but a much higher % than most dogs get. I'm on TEN and they are at 28%. |
theclaw | 65 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by theclaw:
Quote Originally Posted by slamspurs: Thanks Claw. Was wondering where you were at. This helps. Had surgery last week. Was posting pics last week from my hospital bed. Was in hospital for 3 days/nights, not a big deal, pretty routine stuff. Was there for Thanksgiving. Checked out the next day. Back home now and doing very, very well. Doing PT now but kind of slow at getting things done. Glad to hear you are recovering. Hospital food on Thansgobbling Day must have been a bit disappointing. |
theclaw | 65 |
|
|
Good luck. TC, you got a great line with IND +1.5. IND has been -1.5 at Heritage all week. |
theclaw | 65 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Midnight1:
Purely from a business point of view consider this... An ex-employee was fired 4 yrs ago. He reacted by sending a violent mob to trash the office, assault police, and threaten to attack or kill the managers.He refused to leave and stole a ton of sensitive shit on the way out & got caught doing so. Now he's re-applying. What would you do? Trump got re-elected which doesn't say much for the voters. Now he is wreaking even more havoc without one iota of conscience. |
tech65 | 57 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Riderx:
Umm...the Bears as a road dog after gaining more than 200 RY since the '02 re-align: team=Bears and AD and p:RY>200 and season>=2002 1-10 s/u & 1-10 ats the only s/u & ats win in '22 at NE on MNF & the Bears were coming off a s/u loss at home Nice query. |
Yanasaur | 87 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit:
Is point differential that important? here’s a list of SB winners reg season point differential 1966 Packers: 172 1967 Packers: 123 1968 Jets: 139 1969 Chiefs: 182 1970 Colts: 87 1971 Cowboys: 184 1972 Dolphins: 214 1973 Dolphins: 193 1974 Steelers: 116 1975 Steelers: 211 1976 Raiders: 113 1977 Cowboys: 133 1978 Steelers: 161 1979 Steelers: 154 1980 Raiders: 58 1981 49ers: 107 1982 Redskins: 62 1983 Raiders: 104 1984 49ers: 248 1985 Bears: 258 1986 Giants: 135 1987 Redskins: 94 1988 49ers: 75 1989 49ers: 189 1990 Giants: 124 1991 Redskins: 261 1992 Cowboys: 166 1993 Cowboys: 147 1994 49ers: 209 1995 Cowboys: 144 1996 Packers: 246 1997 Broncos: 185 1998 Broncos: 192 1999 Rams: 284 2000 Ravens: 168 2001 Patriots: 99 2002 Buccaneers: 150 2003 Patriots: 110 2004 Patriots: 177 2005 Steelers: 131 2006 Colts: 67 2007 Giants: 22 2008 Steelers: 124 2009 Saints: 169 2010 Packers: 148 2011 Giants: -6 2012 Ravens: 54 2013 Seahawks: 186 2014 Patriots: 155 2015 Broncos: 59 2016 Patriots: 191 2017 Eagles: 162 2018 Patriots: 111 2019 Chiefs: 143 2020 Buccaneers: 137 2021 Rams: 88 2022 Chiefs: 127 2023 Chiefs: 77 2024 Eagles: 160 The 2007 undefeated Patriots were +315 yet they lost to the Giants who were only +22 for the reg season The 2011 Patriots were +171 but lost to the Giants who were -6 for the reg season Thanks for all of your time and effort. |
Yanasaur | 87 |
|
|
replied to
***Macwesties * Mon. Dec. 01, 2025 * NFL * Week #13 * MNF * Football Plays***
in NFL Betting Good luck. |
Macwestie1 | 21 |
|
|
@vanzack Thanks for responding. Good luck with whatever you do. |
CCK | 43 |
|
|
Sweet! The dogs were biting. |
Macwestie1 | 57 |
|
|
Nice hit with WAS, and since I tailed I will say, "Congratulations and thank you." |
theclaw | 63 |
|
|
Congratulations on CAR. |
theclaw | 63 |
|
|
Congratulations. |
theclaw | 63 |
|
|
Good luck. |
theclaw | 63 |
|
|
I bet too late to get the best line; I just got TEN +13 for one unit. However, I did like TEN enough to place a half-unit bet at +8.5/+147. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, TC. I did take a second look at that game. |
theclaw | 66 |
|
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.