Falcons @ Bears: Opportunity Knocks [Archive]

YoureToast

12-14-2005, 08:44 PM

Atlanta +3 +117 or Atlanta +3.5 -110 can be found presently at Pinny.

These are outstanding opportunities as this matchup is tailor-made for the Falcons. Atlanta should be able to run very successfully against this Bears team in the cold particularly to the right, which will open up the Vick boot. And the Bears will struggle against Atlanta resurging run defense. DeAngelo Hall will match up favorably with Mushin Muhammad and neutralize their only semi-threat.

This is a must-win for the Falcons and the Bears are in a QB controversy.

Take Atlanta now at this price.
If the price goes down because it looks like Vick might not play, buy more as the QB is not the reason the Falcons will win this game.

I may have an over-under pick later. If anything, I'd lean on the over at 31 or 31.5.

Edit: I also may have some good prop opportunities, particularly with Warrick Dunn.

McGahee

12-14-2005, 10:25 PM

OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

12-14-2005, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And the Bears will struggle against Atlanta resurging run defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Wk 14 NO 125 yds rushing
Wk 13 Car 142 yds rushing
Wk 12 Det 75 yds rushing (5.5 yds/carry) because they were getting slaughtered
Wk 11 TB 140 yds rushing

This may sound like quibbling but if the Falcons can't stop the Bears run game your whole argument breaks down pretty easily.

Sluss

12-15-2005, 08:04 AM

Do you understand the difference between the Steelers run blocking scheme and the Falcons? The Steelers were able to run the ball effectively after the field conditions started to deteriorate because they have a straight ahead blocking scheme where there goal is to stop the lineman in their tracks and drive them off of the line of scrimage. Before that there was some great play calling by the Steelers with screens and misdirection plays.

The Falcons blocking scheme is a zone which is most effective when the lineman are forced to move and they can cut the back side. It is very difficult to cut athletic lineman and line backers. This is the reason why the Falcons struggle vs. TB. The Bears are running the same defense.

If the Falcons win this game it will be because of the Bears poor tackling like last week or Vick being able to throw the ball very well on a cold windy night in Chicago.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 10:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between the Steelers run blocking scheme and the Falcons? The Steelers were able to run the ball effectively after the field conditions started to deteriorate because they have a straight ahead blocking scheme where there goal is to stop the lineman in their tracks and drive them off of the line of scrimage. Before that there was some great play calling by the Steelers with screens and misdirection plays.

The Falcons blocking scheme is a zone which is most effective when the lineman are forced to move and they can cut the back side. It is very difficult to cut athletic lineman and line backers. This is the reason why the Falcons struggle vs. TB. The Bears are running the same defense.

If the Falcons win this game it will be because of the Bears poor tackling like last week or Vick being able to throw the ball very well on a cold windy night in Chicago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make good points regarding the difference between the running styles. However, you forget that the Falcons have one more weapon at their disposal that Pittsburgh does not, and that is the Vick roll-out threat. This threat neutralizes the speed of fast backers and DEs. By the way, Atlanta ran effectively against the Bucs (150 yds) in their last game (150 yds). Against Carolina, the Panthers came in geared up (and it showed in last weeks game against the Bucs) and with a great game plan but Atlanta still gained 120 on the ground. They just didn't score TDs when they needed to. The other very key factor is that the Bears will be starting 2 non-starters (rookies I believe) at the 2 safety spots.

Just to clarify, I don't expect Atlanta to run for huge numbers against the Bears, but they should be able to control the game with the run. Any number of players on the Falcons on offense are difference makers (Vick, Dunn, Crumpler, Roddy White arguably); the Bears have none on offense themselves other than perhaps Muhummad. This game won't be easy by any stretch for the Falcons; but the price is right.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the Bears will struggle against Atlanta resurging run defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Wk 14 NO 125 yds rushing
Wk 13 Car 142 yds rushing
Wk 12 Det 75 yds rushing (5.5 yds/carry) because they were getting slaughtered
Wk 11 TB 140 yds rushing

This may sound like quibbling but if the Falcons can't stop the Bears run game your whole argument breaks down pretty easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the games? At Carolina, yes they struggled against the run, but compared to their previous showings, they showed marked improvement -- and many of Carolina's running yards came in the 2nd half when Carolina was trying to move the clock. Against New Orleans, while the Falcons gave up a few big runs early in the game, they basically shut down the Saints completely in the 2nd half. Remember, this is a team that lost their middle linebacker before the last Saints game and subsequently gave up 200+ yds. This is also a team that has lost its starting right DE. The number of rookies or young players playing for the Falcons right now on defense is mindboggling. Only 5 starters from the beginning of the year are starting now in their same positions (Kerney, Coleman, Lavalais, D. Hall and Carpenter). D. Williams and Brooking have moved positions. Falcons are starting rookies at strong side LB and at right DE. They just demoted one of their safties for a better run-stopper (Ronnie Heard), and it showed in the Saints game. This run defense is NOT good, but it is getting better. And it is good enough to stop the Bears, especially given the lack of threats on the outside.

12-15-2005, 10:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between the Steelers run blocking scheme and the Falcons? The Steelers were able to run the ball effectively after the field conditions started to deteriorate because they have a straight ahead blocking scheme where there goal is to stop the lineman in their tracks and drive them off of the line of scrimage. Before that there was some great play calling by the Steelers with screens and misdirection plays.

The Falcons blocking scheme is a zone which is most effective when the lineman are forced to move and they can cut the back side. It is very difficult to cut athletic lineman and line backers. This is the reason why the Falcons struggle vs. TB. The Bears are running the same defense.

If the Falcons win this game it will be because of the Bears poor tackling like last week or Vick being able to throw the ball very well on a cold windy night in Chicago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make good points regarding the difference between the running styles. However, you forget that the Falcons have one more weapon at their disposal that Pittsburgh does not, and that is the Vick roll-out threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm confused. I thought you said Vick wasn't going to matter in this game? The reason the line has dropped from -2.5 -115 to -3 -120 is because of Vick's health incidentally. If he is a factor as you're claiming now, the chance that he gets knocked out of the game makes this line move pretty smart.

12-15-2005, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the Bears will struggle against Atlanta resurging run defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Wk 14 NO 125 yds rushing
Wk 13 Car 142 yds rushing
Wk 12 Det 75 yds rushing (5.5 yds/carry) because they were getting slaughtered
Wk 11 TB 140 yds rushing

This may sound like quibbling but if the Falcons can't stop the Bears run game your whole argument breaks down pretty easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the games? At Carolina, yes they struggled against the run, but compared to their previous showings, they showed marked improvement -- and many of Carolina's running yards came in the 2nd half when Carolina was trying to move the clock. Against New Orleans, while the Falcons gave up a few big runs early in the game, they basically shut down the Saints completely in the 2nd half. Remember, this is a team that lost their middle linebacker before the last Saints game and subsequently gave up 200+ yds. This is also a team that has lost its starting right DE. The number of rookies or young players playing for the Falcons right now on defense is mindboggling. Only 5 starters from the beginning of the year are starting now in their same positions (Kerney, Coleman, Lavalais, D. Hall and Carpenter). D. Williams and Brooking have moved positions. Falcons are starting rookies at strong side LB and at right DE. They just demoted one of their safties for a better run-stopper (Ronnie Heard), and it showed in the Saints game. This run defense is NOT good, but it is getting better. And it is good enough to stop the Bears, especially given the lack of threats on the outside.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between "improved from bad" and "resurgent", I think that's all the previous poster and I are trying to point out.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand the difference between the Steelers run blocking scheme and the Falcons? The Steelers were able to run the ball effectively after the field conditions started to deteriorate because they have a straight ahead blocking scheme where there goal is to stop the lineman in their tracks and drive them off of the line of scrimage. Before that there was some great play calling by the Steelers with screens and misdirection plays.

The Falcons blocking scheme is a zone which is most effective when the lineman are forced to move and they can cut the back side. It is very difficult to cut athletic lineman and line backers. This is the reason why the Falcons struggle vs. TB. The Bears are running the same defense.

If the Falcons win this game it will be because of the Bears poor tackling like last week or Vick being able to throw the ball very well on a cold windy night in Chicago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make good points regarding the difference between the running styles. However, you forget that the Falcons have one more weapon at their disposal that Pittsburgh does not, and that is the Vick roll-out threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm confused. I thought you said Vick wasn't going to matter in this game? The reason the line has dropped from -2.5 -115 to -3 -120 is because of Vick's health incidentally. If he is a factor as you're claiming now, the chance that he gets knocked out of the game makes this line move pretty smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I'm assuming Vick's playing as of what I heard this morning. I would also suspect that the line will move "too" strongly if it turns out Schaub will play, in which case, there will still be value.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 11:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the Bears will struggle against Atlanta resurging run defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Wk 14 NO 125 yds rushing
Wk 13 Car 142 yds rushing
Wk 12 Det 75 yds rushing (5.5 yds/carry) because they were getting slaughtered
Wk 11 TB 140 yds rushing

This may sound like quibbling but if the Falcons can't stop the Bears run game your whole argument breaks down pretty easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch the games? At Carolina, yes they struggled against the run, but compared to their previous showings, they showed marked improvement -- and many of Carolina's running yards came in the 2nd half when Carolina was trying to move the clock. Against New Orleans, while the Falcons gave up a few big runs early in the game, they basically shut down the Saints completely in the 2nd half. Remember, this is a team that lost their middle linebacker before the last Saints game and subsequently gave up 200+ yds. This is also a team that has lost its starting right DE. The number of rookies or young players playing for the Falcons right now on defense is mindboggling. Only 5 starters from the beginning of the year are starting now in their same positions (Kerney, Coleman, Lavalais, D. Hall and Carpenter). D. Williams and Brooking have moved positions. Falcons are starting rookies at strong side LB and at right DE. They just demoted one of their safties for a better run-stopper (Ronnie Heard), and it showed in the Saints game. This run defense is NOT good, but it is getting better. And it is good enough to stop the Bears, especially given the lack of threats on the outside.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between "improved from bad" and "resurgent", I think that's all the previous poster and I are trying to point out.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurgent" = wrong choice of words. Should be "improving"

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurging" is wrong. "Improving" is right.
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

12-15-2005, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurging" is wrong. "Improving" is right.
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bears are 7th in the league in rushing.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurging" is wrong. "Improving" is right.
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bears are 7th in the league in rushing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless stat. They don't score.

12-15-2005, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurging" is wrong. "Improving" is right.
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bears are 7th in the league in rushing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless stat. They don't score.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, they don't give up points either! lol Where is this whole argument going....basically what you're saying is the Bears will have their usual flat offensive game (14-17 per game, even though they're facing a sub-par defense, and at home) but the Falcons are going to score enough on the Bears to lose by 3 or win. I really don't see this at all and think you're underestimating the Bear defense.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I like the Bears. Resurging run defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Resurging" is wrong. "Improving" is right.
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bears are 7th in the league in rushing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless stat. They don't score.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, they don't give up points either! lol Where is this whole argument going....basically what you're saying is the Bears will have their usual flat offensive game (14-17 per game, even though they're facing a sub-par defense, and at home) but the Falcons are going to score enough on the Bears to lose by 3 or win. I really don't see this at all and think you're underestimating the Bear defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta...Really, based on the matchups as I see them, I think there is a good probability that Atlanta will score more than average against the Bears and there is a good probability that the Bears will score less than average against the Falcons. In general, the Bears defense, as evidenced by the the Pittsburgh game and as further supported by the fact that they've lost both starting safeties, is VASTLY overrated. Take a look at the teams they've dominated over the last 9 or 10 weeks. Other than Tampa or arguably Carolina, none of these teams are (or were at the time) a threat offensively. With a few exceptions (Carolina), Atlanta has shown that they can score. But for Atlanta's injuries, Atlanta would be considered a vastly superior team to the Bears. The fact is that Atlanta's injuries won't be much of a factor because Chicago doesn't have the talent offensively to exploit it.

12-15-2005, 12:24 PM

It's true the Bears have played a cake schedule, 27th overall according to the Sagarin's. But Atlanta's played the 30th toughest schedule so please man, look at both sides evenly. I haven't accused you of this before but there's far too much homer in the pick this time around.

kevkev60614

12-15-2005, 12:25 PM

Part of the line comes from the fact that Atlanta has had one less day to prepare than Chicago.

I think everyone hears what you're saying about Chicago's poor offense and they agree. But they've still gotten 9 wins, they're 6-1 at home, they're #1 in defense and #7 in rushing offense.

Personally, I think the line is exactly where it should be.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's true the Bears have played a cake schedule, 27th overall according to the Sagarin's. But Atlanta's played the 30th toughest schedule so please man, look at both sides evenly. I haven't accused you of this before but there's far too much homer in the pick this time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Homer yes; affecting my choice, absolutely not. 30th, 27th...etc it doesn't matter. Matchups, injuries and confidence-factors, team morale are what matters. Assess those things correctly, you'll be right more often than not. All of those things favor the Falcons in my view. I didn't say that about GB, Tampa, Carolina or (wrongly) New Orleans. I say that now. I would not too surprised (although I'm not predicting) to see a BIG win (something like 27-7) by the Falcons. I would be surprised to see Chicago win by any number greater than 7. What this comes down to is value, and I see it here at +3 +117 or +3.5 -110.

As a side note, Atlanta is 4-0 in prime time games this year. 3 Monday nights and 1 Thanksgiving Thursday. There is value in that -- not by the stat itself -- but in the reasons for the stat.

12-15-2005, 12:47 PM

My point is if you think the Bears' D hasn't proved much against weak opponents, the Falcons' D and O hasn't proved much either against a similarly cake schedule.

Philly at home, the Jets at home, at Detroit and New Orleans at home....4-0 isn't a trend, it's a leap of faith.

edit: but hey what's new, we go back and forth on Atlanta all the time. Bears 10-6.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My point is if you think the Bears' D hasn't proved much against weak opponents, the Falcons' D and O hasn't proved much either against a similarly cake schedule.

Philly at home, the Jets at home, at Detroit and New Orleans at home....4-0 isn't a trend, it's a leap of faith.

edit: but hey what's new, we go back and forth on Atlanta all the time. Bears 10-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about the quality of opposition in prime time. I think you'll be able to add the Bears to the list as one of those weak teams and that will be known by the end of the year (after they don't win their division).

12-15-2005, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is if you think the Bears' D hasn't proved much against weak opponents, the Falcons' D and O hasn't proved much either against a similarly cake schedule.

Philly at home, the Jets at home, at Detroit and New Orleans at home....4-0 isn't a trend, it's a leap of faith.

edit: but hey what's new, we go back and forth on Atlanta all the time. Bears 10-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about the quality of opposition in prime time. I think you'll be able to add the Bears to the list as one of those weak teams and that will be known by the end of the year (after they don't win their division).

[/ QUOTE ]

Both squads are overrated, I'm sure of that. Home field, better defense, I'll take the home team laying the moderately low number.

scott8

12-15-2005, 02:06 PM

I see no value in this line.

OP sounds like he is just trying to make his analysis fit his argument.

And FWIW I watched NO run all over Atlanta three days ago.

YoureToast

12-15-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no value in this line.

OP sounds like he is just trying to make his analysis fit his argument.

And FWIW I watched NO run all over Atlanta three days ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch the game again and tell me your opinion doesn't change.

scott8

12-15-2005, 02:47 PM

My opinion is that NO would have cruised past 200 yrds rushing if the score would have remained close.

VarlosZ

12-15-2005, 03:02 PM

Weather forecast for the game:
[ QUOTE ]
Sunday Night
Mostly cloudy with chance of snow showers in the evening...then partly cloudy after midnight. Lows 8 to 10. Chance of snow 40 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be a fun game.

Bold prediction: Atlanta takes a 7-0 halftime lead, but Grossman comes out to start the 2nd half, and Chicago rallies for a 17-7 win. Much unwarranted Super Bowl talk ensues.

Sluss

12-15-2005, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bears average 130 yards a game rushing are 7th in the NFL averageing 4.3 YPC and Thomas Jones is 10th in the NFL and 5th in the NFC in rushing with 1077 yards and he missed a game vs. San Fran. Plus, Kyle Orton is their QB they run the ball...alot. That is all they can do on offense. The only way to get the Bears to stop running is get a lead on them.

Easy E

12-15-2005, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line here: Chicago cannot exploit Atlanta's main weakness (run defense) because both of the following are true: 1. Chicago's run offense isn't outstanding and 2. Atlanta's run defense is improving.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Bears average 130 yards a game rushing are 7th in the NFL averageing 4.3 YPC and Thomas Jones is 10th in the NFL and 5th in the NFC in rushing with 1077 yards and he missed a game vs. San Fran. Plus, Kyle Orton is their QB they run the ball...alot. That is all they can do on offense. The only way to get the Bears to stop running is get a lead on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom line for me here is, Atlanta hasn't shown the consistancy to make me believe strongly in their chances. If Vick's ribs are injured, that makes his questionable passing skills worse, on a bad weather day. If the Bears can focus on stopping the run....
The Bears' offense also inspires little faith. I don't plan on betting on this game; if forced to, I'd ride the Bears under train (10-3 ATU so far), but I haven't seen the latest line.

BreakEvenPlayer

12-15-2005, 10:50 PM

Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

CCx

12-15-2005, 10:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey now

Sluss

12-16-2005, 08:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, there was always more venom in the CCx posts. If the Falcons lose this week there won't be another 20 posts ripping him.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my record making Falcons picks speaks for itself.

12-16-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my record making Falcons picks speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true.

CCx

12-16-2005, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my record making Falcons picks speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is that record?

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my record making Falcons picks speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is that record?

[/ QUOTE ]'

Actually not keeping a tally. I think I've made about 6-8 predictions and been wrong once. Perhaps someone who is following the selections will know; otherwise, you can use the search function.

By the way, my view is getting stronger as the week progresses. Vick is definitely playing (and its even possible their backup DT Lake, who dislocated a shoulder last week, may play). And the Bears are more beat up than I thought. They may be missing their starting right guard and a starting linebacker, in addition to their top 3 safeties. Atlanta should be favored in this game. More on the injury situation later.

CCx

12-16-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
otherwise, you can use the search function.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks, I figured you might know.

Sygamel, since you're a supporter, do you happen to know off-hand?

12-16-2005, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Toast is the new CCx.

I'm just happy you aren't using "we" anymore in your analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my record making Falcons picks speaks for itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is that record?

[/ QUOTE ]'

Actually not keeping a tally. I think I've made about 6-8 predictions and been wrong once. Perhaps someone who is following the selections will know; otherwise, you can use the search function.

By the way, my view is getting stronger as the week progresses. Vick is definitely playing (and its even possible their backup DT Lake, who dislocated a shoulder last week, may play). And the Bears are more beat up than I thought. They may be missing their starting right guard and a starting linebacker, in addition to their top 3 safeties. Atlanta should be favored in this game. More on the injury situation later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you've just made the often faulty NFL wagering assumption that a player who starts a game (Vick) is healthy enough to play well throughout and/or even survive the full 60 minutes.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
otherwise, you can use the search function.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks, I figured you might know.

Sygamel, since you're a supporter, do you happen to know off-hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to be a smart ass if thats how it came out. Actually, by looking at some of my old posts, you'll not only see how I've picked but begin to get a sense of my rationale. I may just be getting lucky, ut I think I'm pretty good as assessing this team and its matchups.

CCx

12-16-2005, 11:21 AM

I wasn't trying to question the validity of your picks or your analysis, nor did I think you were being a smartass, I was just asking if you had an overall tally of how you were doing with your picks this year. No more, no less.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 11:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to question the validity of your picks or your analysis, nor did I think you were being a smartass, I was just asking if you had an overall tally of how you were doing with your picks this year. No more, no less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok...Sounds good.

Another factor I forgot to mention (and this one has 2 caveats). DeAngelo Hall is returning punts now for the Falcons. He's a little inexperienced in the pros at this (although he was an phenomenal college punt returner), but he looks like he may break a big one every time he catches one with any kind of room. Don't be surprised to see special teams play a big role in this game and Atlanta, under Joe Decamilis, is frequently one of the best in the business. Caveats are these: I don't know jack about the Bears punter and punt coverage; and despite the general good quality of the Falcons kicking and punting units, the punt return teams get a ridiculous number of block in the back and holding penalties (which obviously would neutralize any big Hall returns).

I guess my point is: watch DeAngelo this Sunday -- he's a difference maker.

Easy E

12-16-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Actually not keeping a tally. I think I've made about 6-8 predictions and been wrong once.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly, I'm personally 0-2 on betting your Falcons picks.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually not keeping a tally. I think I've made about 6-8 predictions and been wrong once.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly, I'm personally 0-2 on betting your Falcons picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I will provide a more accurate tally shortly.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
otherwise, you can use the search function.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks, I figured you might know.

Sygamel, since you're a supporter, do you happen to know off-hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since a few of you seem to be interested, I've gone through my Falcons picks this year. Here are the results -- although I liked some games more than others, I'm assuming all were for one unit:

1. Falcons @ Bills (Over) - Win
2. Falcons vs. Vikings -- Win
3. Falcons vs. Patriots (Under) -- Loss (Who woulda guessed Schaub would play like Dan Marino?)
4. Falcons vs. Jets -- Win
5. Falcons vs. Miami -- Win (Note I called this 2 weeks in advance -- This was my favorite pick all year)
6. Falcons vs. Lions (Under) - Win
7. Falcons vs. Lions (Vick Rushing Over) - Win
8. Falcons vs. Lions (Dunn Rushing Over) - Win (For 1.6 units due to price)

So 7-1 for the year according to my quick review for roughly 6.5 units in 8 games.
Note there were other games where I suggested going one way or the other if you had to play it but it wasn't an "official" recommendation -- I didn't count those (but I think I even did pretty well in those games.)

I did this quickly, so please correct me if you see any mistakes.

CCx

12-16-2005, 03:10 PM

I was wondering, how does one know which of your picks are your 'official' picks and which aren't?

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering, how does one know which of your picks are your 'official' picks and which aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its pretty self-evident. When I say "Take Atlanta -3", or "Take the under", or "Atlanta is a great value", thats "official" in my view. When I say, "I don't recommend betting here, but if you had to go one way or the other, I'd go with the Under", thats "not official". I don't think there can be much confusion about whether I felt strongly or not (by the way, when I first started doing this, I was going to analyze all Falcons games and thats why you'd see some of the more iffy comments. Lately, I've just been posting when I felt strongly.) With Miami, its "official".

scott8

12-16-2005, 03:16 PM

Any thoughts on a Dome team being outside in December?

Lottery Larry

12-16-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Note there were other games where I suggested going one way or the other if you had to play it but it wasn't an "official" recommendation -- I didn't count those (but I think I even did pretty well in those games.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I remember, this is one of the two that I lost on.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 03:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts on a Dome team being outside in December?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is the one factor I'm a little bit uneasy about. Its not so much being a dome team as it is being a southern team. I think the weather DID affect the Falcons in the NFC Championship last year -- not so much the cold, but the win. However, Vick & Co. did perform fine in Green Bay a few years back in the playoffs. I think the Falcons will have learned from their experience in Philly last year, but the real reason weather doesn't change my opinion is because the 2005 Bears are NOT the 2004 Eagles -- not even close.

Remember, nothing is a lock. Like all my other picks, all I am saying is that I believe there is good value here.

scott8

12-16-2005, 03:28 PM

Slight hijack, but what do you set the over/under on the ESPN crew mentioning how cold it is in Chicago at night?

CCx

12-16-2005, 03:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Slight hijack, but what do you set the over/under on the ESPN crew mentioning how cold it is in Chicago at night?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to see them covered in blankets again like they were last week in Green Bay... maybe Theismann's lips will fall off.

YoureToast

12-16-2005, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Slight hijack, but what do you set the over/under on the ESPN crew mentioning how cold it is in Chicago at night?

[/ QUOTE ]

476.

About the same as the over/under on the times they say "Warrick Dunn is a great person".

As much as I'm looking forward to watching the game, I also am cringing at having to listen to their hyperbole.

12-16-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slight hijack, but what do you set the over/under on the ESPN crew mentioning how cold it is in Chicago at night?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to see them covered in blankets again like they were last week in Green Bay... maybe Theismann's lips will fall off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping Maguire developed frostbite and gangrene within the course of those 3 hours.

VarlosZ

12-18-2005, 05:55 AM

NY Times article on warm weather and/or dome teams playing in cold weather away games: Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/sports/football/18score.html).

[ QUOTE ]
Since 1998 and through Week 14, there have been 262 games in which a team that plays in a warmer climate or indoors has gone on the road to play a cold-weather team outdoors after Oct. 31.

In those games, including the playoffs, the cold-weather home teams won 67 percent of the time (174-87-1). That is significantly better than the standard N.F.L. home-field advantage, in which home teams win about 58 percent of the time. . .

This issue is even more severe for the six teams that play their home games indoors: Indianapolis, Detroit, Minnesota, St. Louis, New Orleans and Atlanta.

Since 2000, dome teams are 15-41 when the temperature at the start of the game is 50 degrees or lower, and 2-13 when the temperature is freezing or below.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just another reason I like the Bears -3, and the main reason I shouldn't have bet on Tampa this week.

Jack of Arcades

12-18-2005, 06:55 AM

Varlos,

I researched that article. Atlanta is 1-2 where it's below freezing and 2-4 when it's below 50.

YoureToast

12-18-2005, 01:54 PM

This game is now widely available @ 3.5 (after moving down during the week) at:
Cris: -110
VIP: -110
Holly: -107

Pound it.

VarlosZ

12-18-2005, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bold prediction: Atlanta takes a 7-0 halftime lead, but Grossman comes out to start the 2nd half, and Chicago rallies for a 17-7 win. Much unwarranted Super Bowl talk ensues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Grossman!

12-18-2005, 11:57 PM

why does Paul Maguire always have to ruin a good game. Just suck Urlacher's c**k already you zero.

12-19-2005, 12:23 AM

Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

(2) the 4th down handoff to Duckett, after the same play lost 1 yard (oh and you have Vick back there who could run for it himself).

YoureToast

12-19-2005, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

(2) the 4th down handoff to Duckett, after the same play lost 1 yard (oh and you have Vick back there who could run for it himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

This game is by far the low point in Jim Mora's coaching career (and I blame Mora not Knapp). They started with a conservative attitude and refused to allow their players to do what they do best. The decision to Duckett was just an illustration of how illprepared and intimidated the Falcons were coached tonight. The Jenkins call was atrocious and I have no explanation for it. They will not and do not deserve to go to the playoffs.

12-19-2005, 12:29 AM

Add question 3 -- 4th and 1 with 3 left and you throw a bomb?

This is why I swore never to bet on the Falcons. Why I continue to violate the prime directive is a mystery.

the34eagle

12-19-2005, 12:31 AM

haha thankyou toast, its people like you that help me make money. i pounded the bears and i pounded the bears preseason to win the north at 10:1. looks like that cool 10k will come in handy for my gf's birthday.

TheRover

12-19-2005, 12:34 AM

TheRover

12-19-2005, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume they said no possession and since the ball never hit the ground it was a catch by the Bears' DB off of the WR's body. I couldn't really tell, though.

VarlosZ

12-19-2005, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
It was a good call on the INT. The receiver never established possession by getting a second foot down before getting knocked to the ground, in which case he must maintain possession when he hits the ground in order for it to be ruled a catch.

[/ QUOTE ]

12-19-2005, 12:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume they said no possession and since the ball never hit the ground it was a catch by the Bears' DB off of the WR's body. I couldn't really tell, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was no where near a catch. The ball was around his waist with no hand on it when he it the ground, which caused it to pop up in the air

McGahee

12-19-2005, 12:48 AM

bugstud

12-19-2005, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume they said no possession and since the ball never hit the ground it was a catch by the Bears' DB off of the WR's body. I couldn't really tell, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was no where near a catch. The ball was around his waist with no hand on it when he it the ground, which caused it to pop up in the air

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah the ball does not ever come out like that if he had possession.

12-19-2005, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

(2) the 4th down handoff to Duckett, after the same play lost 1 yard (oh and you have Vick back there who could run for it himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither play had that much of an impact on the game. The Bears just kicked their ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but they had a significant impact on my wagers.

12-19-2005, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume they said no possession and since the ball never hit the ground it was a catch by the Bears' DB off of the WR's body. I couldn't really tell, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was no where near a catch. The ball was around his waist with no hand on it when he it the ground, which caused it to pop up in the air

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah the ball does not ever come out like that if he had possession.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked to me like he caught it, started to take a step ("football move"), was pasted, hit the ground, and then the ball popped in the air. At least Jim Mora seemed to agree with me.

bugstud

12-19-2005, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume they said no possession and since the ball never hit the ground it was a catch by the Bears' DB off of the WR's body. I couldn't really tell, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was no where near a catch. The ball was around his waist with no hand on it when he it the ground, which caused it to pop up in the air

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah the ball does not ever come out like that if he had possession.

[/ QUOTE ]

It looked to me like he caught it, started to take a step ("football move"), was pasted, hit the ground, and then the ball popped in the air. At least Jim Mora seemed to agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

to me, he gets popped, he only has one hand loosely on the ball after the hit and pops up when he hits the ground.

craig r

12-19-2005, 04:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
haha thankyou toast, its people like you that help me make money. i pounded the bears and i pounded the bears preseason to win the north at 10:1. looks like that cool 10k will come in handy for my gf's birthday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! You tell him! I was looking at your post, the one you made before the game, and said "take the bears, they will cover." You were so right about that.

Good job coming in here and 1) telling a pick after the fact, 2)kicking somebody when they are down. We all really appreciate it. I hope it made you feel good.

craig

p.s. I did not bet on the game either way.
p.p.s. I mean I bet a lot on CHI. I am the greatest capper ever.

CCx

12-19-2005, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Good job ..... 1) telling a pick after the fact, 2)kicking somebody when they are down. We all really appreciate it. I hope it made you feel good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, the nerve of some of these people....

McGahee

12-19-2005, 09:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone has to explain two things to me:

(1) the failure to reverse the "interception" -- the receiver had possession and clearly was down ... and the TV crew does not know what they are taling about; and

(2) the 4th down handoff to Duckett, after the same play lost 1 yard (oh and you have Vick back there who could run for it himself).

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither play had that much of an impact on the game. The Bears just kicked their ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but they had a significant impact on my wagers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

kevkev60614

12-19-2005, 10:30 AM

I moved from Chicago to FL (btw we had the A/C on when we were watching the game) and I can't get Chicago news here. I know 75% of chi-town is busy searching for superbowl tickets on e-bay. I'm curious what the Chicagoans who know something about football are saying after last night's game.

I'd imagine the consensus is that Grossman has always been the better QB, Lovie made the right decision at halftime, and that we could go deep in the playoffs but a Superbowl ring is something close to 0%. Is that about right?

12-19-2005, 11:34 AM

12-19-2005, 11:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious what the Chicagoans who know something about football are saying after last night's game.

I'd imagine the consensus is that Grossman has always been the better QB, Lovie made the right decision at halftime, and that we could go deep in the playoffs but a Superbowl ring is something close to 0%. Is that about right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Bear fan living in WI (still get Chicago radio). Your points from Florida are pretty much spot on.

1) Grossman has been the better QB, 8 game winning streak was not due to Orton. He made some good throws but is a rookie 4th round pick. Defense and running game has been winning the games.
2) To go deep in playoffs, the offense had to improve. I'm tired of national media saying "Orton did what was asked....he's managing the game....he won 8 games in a row". The Bears need to improve on 32nd (last) ranked passing attack and lowest rated starting QB.

2 yards of total offense in 1st Quarter last night. Granted they had no field position but if it got to 3rd and 6, forget it. 29th in NFL 3rd down conversions (terrible last 3 weeks w/ Orton).

I'm not going to say 0% chance for SuperBowl because:

A) Defense is legit
B) Offense is upgraded w/ Grossman (O-line has played well, good running backs, top flight WR in Muhammed).
C) NFC is not that strong, other than Seattle & Carolina.
D) Bears have been underrated all year. I haven't always believed. NFL things can happen seemingly overnite.

I'm also not on ebay buying my tickets for Ford Field. I'd love it if they went.

kevkev60614

12-19-2005, 12:00 PM

Approximate odds of winning the Superbowl taken from the midmarket of options on tradesports.com

Trade NFL.COLTS - 45.65%
Trade NFL.SEAHAWKS - 11%
Trade NFL.BRONCOS - 6.4%
Trade NFL.PANTHERS - 3.8%
Trade NFL.STEELERS - 2.85%
Trade NFL.PATRIOTS - 8.25%
Trade NFL.BEARS - 5.4%
Trade NFL.COWBOYS - 0.5%
Trade NFL.CHARGERS - 2.25%
Trade NFL.BENGALS - 5.8%
Trade NFL.GIANTS - 4.85%
Trade NFL.JAGUARS - 1.45%
Trade NFL.FALCONS - 0.5%
Trade NFL.BUCCANEERS - 1.4%
Trade NFL.CHIEFS - 0.3%
Trade NFL.VIKINGS - 0.5%
Trade NFL.REDSKINS - 1.05%
Trade NFL.DOLPHINS - 0.05%

Easy E

12-19-2005, 01:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually not keeping a tally. I think I've made about 6-8 predictions and been wrong once.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly, I'm personally 0-2 on betting your Falcons picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I will provide a more accurate tally shortly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice analysis /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/frown.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Sluss

12-19-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I moved from Chicago to FL (btw we had the A/C on when we were watching the game) and I can't get Chicago news here. I know 75% of chi-town is busy searching for superbowl tickets on e-bay. I'm curious what the Chicagoans who know something about football are saying after last night's game.

I'd imagine the consensus is that Grossman has always been the better QB, Lovie made the right decision at halftime, and that we could go deep in the playoffs but a Superbowl ring is something close to 0%. Is that about right?

[/ QUOTE ] Though not a Chicagoan, I am a Bears fan who claims to know something about football.

I was over the top pumped last night. If the Bears can move the ball on 4-5 drives a game they can beat almost anyone.

I have calmed down a bit as I think that while Grossman is more comfortable than Orton he is also a bigger risk taker. This could turn into some problems. I'm also afraid every time Grossman even comes close to being hit. Plus, there is a good shot that Orton's confidence is now gone and if Grossman was to get hurt again he would have trouble running the offense.

All in all though, this is really good for the running game if the defensive team has to think about the pass. The offensive line has been great the whole year. The defense looks refocused after a terrible tackling day against the Steelers.

These are a big two weeks in my mind. If the Bears can win out and pick up the #2 seed I like them against any NFC team that has to come to Chicago that second week of January considering it will probably be the Panthers, Bucs or Giants. Add to that that Seattle could implode at any time and I think with the second seed they have a good chance of coming out of the NFC.

I think they would be a monster underdog in any Superbowl game, maybe even a record underdog, but I would love to be in that spot.

Sometimes the year works out well. The Bears have been healthy for the most part this year and that doesn't happen to often in the NFL. This is one of those seasons where everything seems to be breaking their way. And Grossman gives them the best opportunity to make that a big break.

I don't know if I want to put any numbers on this, but I know I have a good feeling.