Okay, Raiders at Home!!

[anatta]

No pics last week bogarted natedoggs totals for a small score. I am 4-0 documented, look up the archives, and I feel hot...

Sweet, Raiders at home and they are a dog. Raiders know they have to win. (2-3) They are simply a different team at home. I nailed Bucs at Raiders three weeks ago, and if you remember I said watch this team at home. On road, they suck. Penalties. Home = Crazy fans. Denver overrated, doubt they will be able to run against Raiders tough run d. (they ran good last week v Carolina but I think/hope Carolina not same as last year). I have yet to see anyone really run it vs. Raiders, okay Houston but that was on the road. Jake will get pressured. He likes to throw picks. Talented Raider secondary. Commitment to excellence this weekend. The vertical game will lead the silver and black back to prominence!!

Bet bigger than normal on the moneyline.

[$DEADSEXE$]

There must be alot of Raiders fans on here because everyone seems to think the Raiders are going to win this one easy.
The only problem is the Raiders suck..its just a fact.
Kerry Collins blows...they have no running game with Tyrone out. Their defense is 18th against the run and not much better against the pass.
Their facing a team with the #1 defense in the league, one of the top offensive lines in the league.
Bronco's are going to win this game with ease.
6-3 vs. raiders in oakland 14-4 vs raiders since shanhan has been coach.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
14-4 vs raiders since shanhan has been coach.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a different team every year. I don't know how much weight this trend has. I think trends like this can be misleading. And I don't think 18 trials is enough, with this same record, for this trend to be meaningful.

This is not an attack on this particular trend (or poster for that matter) either. I think a lot of people get caught up in "useless" trends, that are quite possibly nothing more than data mining. any thoughts? anyone?

craig

[natedogg]

This trend has SOME meaning because obviously Shanahan is always motivated to beat Al Davis and he gets his team focused.

That said, it only means a little, and not enough to warrant betting Denver this week. Norv Turner is a new coach for OAK so Shanahan and Turner don't have the chess-match history to go on.

Oakland has shown it is one of those schizo teams that sucks on the road and plays lights out at home. There's no explaining these teams but you never ever bet against them at home. Detroit and Arizona in the last couple years are perfect examples. Oakland isn't as bad as those teams, but the road/home disparity is pretty glaring.

You really should not bet against Oakland at home vs. their biggest division rival. And this game is THE pivotal game for their season to be honest. They absolutely must beat Denver this week to have any kind of chance at the playoffs.

I would say Oakland has a 60% chance of winning this game.

natedogg

[$DEADSEXE$]

I'de say Oakland has a 30% chance given their lousy run defense-18th, Kerry Collins going against the #1 pass defense, and Tyrone wheatly being injured.
The only wildcard is Jake Plummer

[MicroBob]

I agree with you Craig....some of these trends are given WAY too much weight.


A friend of mine in town who handicaps (and usually does decently but is struggling this year) sent me some of his picks and thoughts a couple weeks ago.

He included some stat about DAL being 12-5 ATS after a bye-week.
Well, since they only get 1 bye-week a year that's a trend that dates back 17 years which doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The teams were completely different.

If there was some stat that ALL NFL teams perform well as home-underdogs following bye weeks for the past 17 years then I would certainly look into that.

But the stat he sent me seemed to indicate that Dallas is somehow special when coming back from a bye-week.

Sample-size too small.
If you take all the teams, you will find a few that perform well ATS following bye-weeks and others that don't. It's more a variance thing then a trend.



He also had sent me some stuff on UW-PSU a few weeks ago. I don't remember specifically what the stuff was but I remember being equally unimpressed. If a road dog in this series failed to cover 12 years ago I don't think it has much relevance for the current matchup.


More recent trends MIGHT have some meaning because it tends to get in players' heads. The Red Sox failures against the Yanks the past couple years come to mind. In spite of the lengthy history of the rivalry, I suspect most of the BoSox players are more in a Pedro "Yup, they're my Daddy" frame of mind stemming from their recent struggles.

Navy's lengthy losing history of 41 years to Notre Dame might mean a bit because players on both sides are aware of it. But Navy just isn't as good as Notre Dame and they haven't been for several decades....and that's why they haven't beaten them.....not because Notre Dame has established any kind of trend. For almost each individual matchup they have had for the past 4 decades ND has been the better team (although there were a couple of nail-biters in there...and Navy certainly has a decent team this year).


I disagree with Natedogg's contention that:

[ QUOTE ]
This trend has SOME meaning because obviously Shanahan is always motivated to beat Al Davis and he gets his team focused.

That said, it only means a little, and not enough to warrant betting Denver this week. Norv Turner is a new coach for OAK so Shanahan and Turner don't have the chess-match history to go on.


[/ QUOTE ]


I mean....there might BARELY be a LITTLE bit in there. But these guys are simply trying to make the playoffs....if that means beating Oakland or beating the Senior-Citizens Flag-Football League All-Stars then so be it.

Teams do have let-downs...it's hard for a team to maintain top intensity for each play of a 16-game season of course. But, for the most part, each week there is a tremendous focus on the upcoming game and that's all they care about.

[cnfuzzd]

For the record, i know nothing about handicapping, and i picked denver. Which means they probably wont cover.

peace

john nickle

[scalf]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

gl scalfie sez bet all ya got on broncos -1.5 -108 pinny

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Beerfund]

they suck, period. broncos not so overrated now

[$DEADSEXE$]

Good call on the Raiders beating the Bronco's boys...should have listed to me...not cuz I'm smart, but cuz I'm sexy

like i said..broncos win big