Stifler's Mom
10-25-2004, 05:03 PM
What a disappointment the Bungals have become this year after ending last season on a half way promising note. It's obvious that they are still in the same "rebuilding" mode they have been in since like 1989 just from the fact they are starting Carson Palmer at QB instead of Jon Kitna.
The cannot tackle worth a shit, can't stop the run, and can't cover receivers. In other words, they're a sloppy team.
Their lone victory was a 16-13 win over Miami in week 2 and you have to keep in mind how pathetic the Miami offense had played every week until finally showing up and beating the overrated Rams yesterday, so that win means zero to me.
Denver however, is a tightly run ship. They once again can run the football all over the field, no matter who is at RB, they and have a great defense with alot of team speed to cover those "playmakers" Cincinnati has at WR....who are irrelevant if the QB can't get the ball to em anyway.
Cincinnati played Miami and Baltimore at home. They scored a pathetic 9 points vs Baltimore in a 23-9 loss, and 16 against Miami in a 16-13 win. Cleveland and Pittsburgh also both held them to 17, each team whipping their collective asses by double digits in the process. Cincinnati is hardly the high scoring team they were turning into last year.
Why is this relevant? Because Denver has just as good or better of a defense as any of these teams, so I look for 13-17 max out of Cincinnati tonight (barring a Plummer collapse and easy scores due to great field position). Don't think a Plummer collapse is in the cards though, because Denver will be able to run the football up and back down the field almost at will against the pourous Cincinnati defense.
The Cincinnati defense has yielded 23 (to a not so great Ravens offense), 28 to Pittsburgh, 34 to Cleveland and 31 to the Jets. Denver can score with any of these teams...therefore I see at least 24, and more than likely 28-31 points for Denver tonight.
This adds up to a Denver win and cover.
All this home dog cover % and primetime dog cover % means diddly shit in this game unless Denver self destructs, because they are flat out the more talented, more experienced, and better coached ball club.
Yesterday Cleveland covered +7 vs Philly, and I believe alot of factors were overlooked in that game that were in Cleveland's favor, because Philly looked indestructable in its first 5 games.
Detroit also won SU and covered vs the Giants at +7...because Detroit is a better ball team.
Cleveland has Garcia at QB who is a well seasoned veteran, and the Lions have Harrington who has a few years under his belt now as well.
These things don't apply to Cincinnati. They don't have an experienced QB, they are not the better ball club, they do not have a good defense, and they don't have any match-up advantages in their favor. They flat out suck.
Why did these other spreads not move, even though the higher percentages were on the faves? Because there were less wagers coming in on the dogs, but they were for higher amounts would be my assumption.
So....why IS this line moving? One would have to assume because there are not large wagers coming on Cincinnati. No sharp in their right mind would play this sorry ass Bungals team vs Denver at this line and sit there and hope that "70% of primetime dogs cover".
Gimme Denver. The Bungals suck ass. It's the right call weather they cover or not, and that's all you can do as a capper....take the side with the better chance to cover. If the correct call covered 100% of the time, there would be no books to take wagers, so of course it's far from a guarantee, but taking the Bengals tonight basically is like hoping and praying for the ball to bounce in their favor.
Taking a bad team and hoping for that to happen will get you a win every once and a while, but leave you in the poor house before it's all said and done.
Besides all of that, favorites that win SU also cover a spread of less than 10 points at 85-90%, and I think it's safe to say there is absolutely NO reason to think Cincinnati will win this game SU, therefore they have about a 10-15% chance of losing SU, yet covering the spread.
The cannot tackle worth a shit, can't stop the run, and can't cover receivers. In other words, they're a sloppy team.
Their lone victory was a 16-13 win over Miami in week 2 and you have to keep in mind how pathetic the Miami offense had played every week until finally showing up and beating the overrated Rams yesterday, so that win means zero to me.
Denver however, is a tightly run ship. They once again can run the football all over the field, no matter who is at RB, they and have a great defense with alot of team speed to cover those "playmakers" Cincinnati has at WR....who are irrelevant if the QB can't get the ball to em anyway.
Cincinnati played Miami and Baltimore at home. They scored a pathetic 9 points vs Baltimore in a 23-9 loss, and 16 against Miami in a 16-13 win. Cleveland and Pittsburgh also both held them to 17, each team whipping their collective asses by double digits in the process. Cincinnati is hardly the high scoring team they were turning into last year.
Why is this relevant? Because Denver has just as good or better of a defense as any of these teams, so I look for 13-17 max out of Cincinnati tonight (barring a Plummer collapse and easy scores due to great field position). Don't think a Plummer collapse is in the cards though, because Denver will be able to run the football up and back down the field almost at will against the pourous Cincinnati defense.
The Cincinnati defense has yielded 23 (to a not so great Ravens offense), 28 to Pittsburgh, 34 to Cleveland and 31 to the Jets. Denver can score with any of these teams...therefore I see at least 24, and more than likely 28-31 points for Denver tonight.
This adds up to a Denver win and cover.
All this home dog cover % and primetime dog cover % means diddly shit in this game unless Denver self destructs, because they are flat out the more talented, more experienced, and better coached ball club.
Yesterday Cleveland covered +7 vs Philly, and I believe alot of factors were overlooked in that game that were in Cleveland's favor, because Philly looked indestructable in its first 5 games.
Detroit also won SU and covered vs the Giants at +7...because Detroit is a better ball team.
Cleveland has Garcia at QB who is a well seasoned veteran, and the Lions have Harrington who has a few years under his belt now as well.
These things don't apply to Cincinnati. They don't have an experienced QB, they are not the better ball club, they do not have a good defense, and they don't have any match-up advantages in their favor. They flat out suck.
Why did these other spreads not move, even though the higher percentages were on the faves? Because there were less wagers coming in on the dogs, but they were for higher amounts would be my assumption.
So....why IS this line moving? One would have to assume because there are not large wagers coming on Cincinnati. No sharp in their right mind would play this sorry ass Bungals team vs Denver at this line and sit there and hope that "70% of primetime dogs cover".
Gimme Denver. The Bungals suck ass. It's the right call weather they cover or not, and that's all you can do as a capper....take the side with the better chance to cover. If the correct call covered 100% of the time, there would be no books to take wagers, so of course it's far from a guarantee, but taking the Bengals tonight basically is like hoping and praying for the ball to bounce in their favor.
Taking a bad team and hoping for that to happen will get you a win every once and a while, but leave you in the poor house before it's all said and done.
Besides all of that, favorites that win SU also cover a spread of less than 10 points at 85-90%, and I think it's safe to say there is absolutely NO reason to think Cincinnati will win this game SU, therefore they have about a 10-15% chance of losing SU, yet covering the spread.