What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Most Recent Vegas Over/Under Win Totals (1 Viewer)

Anarchy99

Footballguy
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150)

Atlanta 10 (+110) 10 (-130)

Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120)

Buffalo 6.5 (+115) 6.5 (-135)

Carolina 7 (-110) 7 (-110)

Chicago 8.5 (-120) 8.5 (even)

Cincinnati 8.5 (+110) 8.5 (-130)

Cleveland 6 (-130) 6 (+110)

Dallas 8.5 (+135) 8.5 (-155)

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130)

Detroit 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (-110)

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110)

Houston 10 (-130) 10 (+110)

Indianapolis 8.5 (even) 8.5 (-120)

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110)

Kansas City 7 (-145) 7 (+125)

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115)

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115)

New England 11.5 (+115) 11.5 (-135)

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even)

NY Giants 9 (even) 9 (-120)

NY Jets 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110)

Oakland 5.5 (+120) 5.5 (-140)

Philadelphia 7 (-110) 7 (-110)

Pittsburgh 9 (-120) 9 (even)

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135)

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125)

Seattle 10.5 (-110) 10.5 (-110)

St. Louis 7.5 (+120) 7.5 (-140)

Tampa Bay 7.5 (-140) 7.5 (+120)

Tennessee 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110)

Washington 8 (-110) 8 (-110)

What are your Top 3?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IND. 8.5 over. even

SEA 10.5 over -110

CIN. 8.5 over +110

Vegas (as usual) has done good job of nuetering value plays on over under win totals

 
Pitt under, Bengals and Ravens over.

Pitt is old and I think they are going to struggle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Love Baltimore's rebuilt defense. Love the Bengals young offensive weapons and depth everywhere.

 
Pit - Under 9 Even

Ten - Under 6.5 -110

Chi - Under 8.5 even

Atl - Over 10 +110

Indy - Over 8.5 Even

Min - Over 7.5 -110

***Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115)***

Something is wrong with this line. I'm assuming it's a typo.

 
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150)

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130)

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110)

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115)

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even)

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135)

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125)

I'm sure I'll regret saying this when this thread gets bumped six months from now, but I like the over on all of these.

 
I see a couple folks taking the over with Indy on their lists, but I really think they are due for a regression. Their schedule last year was ridiculous and they have a significantly more difficult lineup in 2013. I don't think they get to 9 wins as the line would suggest. I would take the under.

 
I see a couple folks taking the over with Indy on their lists, but I really think they are due for a regression. Their schedule last year was ridiculous and they have a significantly more difficult lineup in 2013. I don't think they get to 9 wins as the line would suggest. I would take the under.
Oak, Ten x2, Jax x2, SD x2, Mia, KC, AZ are 10 winnable games.

SF, Sea, Hou x2 are 4 likely losses

St. L, Cincy are tough but wouldn't be surprised if they won.

You're are not in the minority though. Lots of people are expecting a serious regression.

 
Jax under..worst team in the league

Pats under...trouble in beantown

Saints over....big chip on their shoulder

 
I see a couple folks taking the over with Indy on their lists, but I really think they are due for a regression. Their schedule last year was ridiculous and they have a significantly more difficult lineup in 2013. I don't think they get to 9 wins as the line would suggest. I would take the under.
Oak, Ten x2, Jax x2, SD x2, Mia, KC, AZ are 10 winnable games.

SF, Sea, Hou x2 are 4 likely losses

St. L, Cincy are tough but wouldn't be surprised if they won.

You're are not in the minority though. Lots of people are expecting a serious regression.
The Colts are going to be KC? I'll bet you now that isn't going to happen. Likely they split SD and TEN as well, and I doubt they beat MIA. AZ will also be tough. I only see five games where I'd bet money the Colts win. If they split all those other five and lose the "tough ones" they are setting at ~7.5 wins.

I definitely say Colts under 8.5 this year.

GB & AZ would be my only other two likely bets, taking over on both.

 
I know i'm cursing them, but I don't see any way New Orleans finishes 8-8 or worst. Last year, without their HC and lingering effects of Bountygate, they still managed 7-9.

Also give me Houston over and NYJ under.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yikes. I don't let myself start betting until week 3 after years of getting burned by what I thought were sure things early in the season. Can't imagine doing it a month before preseason even starts. Either way, gets me excited even though I'm still 3 months away from my first bet.

 
What are your Top 3?

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110) - OVER

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110) - UNDER

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115) - OVER
Green Bay will definitely win double-digit games and would only need 11 to cover (obviously). I think they may win 12.

Jacksonville is a complete joke and will be lucky to win 4 games. I have them winning 3.

Minnesota is most definitely the real deal and is going to surpass .500 ball for sure. 7.5 is koo-koo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A writer on Grantland just wrote an article somewhat related to this.

link

He uses some formulas to make the case that you should go long the Lions & Panthers and fade the Vikes & Colts.

July 3, 2013 12:00 AM ET

The NFL's Numbers Game
By Bill Barnwell

Better than one out of every four teams that finishes 6-10 makes the playoffs the following year. That staggering-but-true statistic came up last year, when I went looking for the tell-tale signs of an unlikely leap and mentioned how I would be immediately drug-tested for predicting that the likes of the Colts, Redskins, or Vikings would make the playoffs.1 Winning is everything, but when it comes to figuring out how NFL teams will perform in the future, their win-loss record really doesn't offer as much insight as it might seem.

Research into baseball and basketball found that other statistical indicators were better and/or excellent supplementary predictors of future win-loss record, and football is no exception. Although advanced metrics for football are in their relative infancy and will never be able to match the predictive power that comes with the much larger sample size of baseball- and basketball-size seasons, there are a few metrics that often come up in this space as further insight into a team's performance. Let's take a look at what they have to say about the 2012 season and the NFL slate to come in 2013.

Point Differential

Just as is the case with baseball and basketball, point differential in football is a better predictor of a team's coming win-loss record than its actual win-loss record. The nitty-gritty is in the introductory piece to these methods from last summer, which is worth reading both for a refresher on some of the ideas and for a look back at what the numbers suggested about the 2012 season. As with those other sports, we use a modified version of Bill James's Pythagorean Expectation formula to estimate what a team's record "should"2 have been, given its point differential. That formula, again:

Points For2.37 / (Points For2.37 + Points Against2.37)

In general, a gap of about two wins between your actual win total and your "expected" win total from your point differential is the spot where you start talking about significantly likely improvements. There have been 42 teams since 1989 that underperformed their Pythagorean win total by two wins or more. The following year, those teams saw their win-loss record improve by an average of 2.6 wins. Last year, two teams fit into that category: the Dolphins, who went from 6-10 to 7-9, and the Vikings, who leaped from 3-13 all the way to 10-6. More on the Vikings in a second.

Meanwhile, teams that grossly outperform their Pythagorean expectation by two wins or more often come back to earth. There have been 34 such teams since 1989 and they've lost an average of 2.4 additional games the following campaign. We had our eyes on three such teams last season, and two of them followed the plan: the 15-1 Packers fell to 11-5, while the 7-9 Chiefs hit the bottom of the barrel at 2-14. On the other hand, the 8-8 Broncos ignored the numbers and went 13-3, the largest such increase for a team in this group in the last 24 years. Replacing Tim Tebow with Peyton Manning will do that.

There's only one team each that fits on either side of the Pythagorean equation this season. The team that has a reason to be hopeful? The Detroit Lions, who went 4-12 despite being outscored by just over four points per game, producing a point differential that would normally represent a 6.5-win team. These are the same Lions that lost to the Texans (at least partly) because Jim Schwartz called for a challenge on an unchallengeable play; who lost on the final play to a Colts team that needed a touchdown from the 14-yard line; who lost to the Titans in overtime when Shaun Hill chose to sneak on fourth-and-1 in lieu of kicking a game-tying field goal. They won't necessarily catch all of those breaks next year, but chances are that they won't lose every one of their super-close games like that again, either.

Oh, and those Colts I just mentioned? Be prepared to hear about them a bunch as this column goes on. Let's start, though, by pointing out that they were an 11-5 team that was outscored by 30 points. No team in the history of the NFL has won 11 or more games while being outscored by its competition, and the average record of a team that was outscored by 20 to 40 points across a full season since 1989 has been 7-9. How did the Colts go 11-5 without outscoring their opponents? Well, for one, they were stunningly good in ...

Games Decided by One Touchdown or Less
The proxy for close games that often goes hand-in-hand with overall point differential, this one is the indicator that notes how it's awful hard to win a high percentage of games decided by seven points or fewer year after year. You'll see the occasional hot run from a Hall of Fame–caliber quarterback who is particularly effective at squeezing out extra possessions at the end of each half, but the vast majority of teams will see their performances in these sorts of games regress toward the mean3 from year to year.

In last year's primer, I highlighted five teams that had particularly good records in close games in 2011: the Raiders (7-2 in close games in 2011), Packers (5-1), Saints (4-1), 49ers (6-2), and Steelers (5-2). In 2012, despite the presence of several star quarterbacks on their respective rosters, those same five teams went a combined 16-16-1 in games decided by one touchdown or less. Their overall win-loss record declined by 19.5 wins,4 nearly four full wins per team. And again, the only team to arrest its expected slide was the one that upgraded at quarterback, the 49ers.

Some of the teams that had particularly egregious records in close games in 2011 used an improvement in this very category to make it into the playoffs in 2012. At the front of the line were the Colts and Vikings, who were a combined 3-14 in one-score games in 2011. Last year, they combined to go 14-2, including a 9-1 streak from the Colts. The Eagles and Rams improved to finish a combined 8-7-1 in .500 games, but the Eagles still got blown out frequently enough to lose four games off of their previous record. And, finally, the Panthers still managed to go a dismal 1-7 in one-score games last year, with the heartbreaking loss to the Falcons sticking in my memory as a notable defeat. In all, these teams went a combined 23-16-1 in one-score games in 2012, improving their overall record by an average of 3.7 wins per team.

And for 2013? Let's do the same thing and put together a table with the five best and worst records in one-score games from 2012, records that are unlikely to be maintained in 2013:

Best Record Worst Record Texans 5-0 Chargers 1-5 Colts 9-1 Panthers 1-7 Vikings 5-1 Lions 3-8 Falcons 7-2 Jaguars 2-5 Bengals 5-3 Buccaneers 3-6
One more fun tidbit with the 2011-12 Vikings before I move on: The 2011 team lost five games after leading at halftime, which was the most in the league. That has happened 21 times since 1989, and the following year those teams improved their win-loss record by an average of more than three games. Push that figure out to teams with four such losses, and you get a 73-team sample, which has improved its win-loss record by an average of 2.4 wins. I don't know how meaningful that number really is, but I can tell you that there's only one team from 2012 that fits this bill, and it's one of the teams that reside on the "Worst" side of that table above: the Chargers, who blew five different halftime leads last season. And that includes double-digit leads over the Ravens and Broncos.

Strength of Schedule
Strength of schedule sure is difficult to predict: Just remember last year's Broncos, who I expected to have the league's hardest schedule during a season in which they would eventually finish with the NFL's fifth-easiest slate (per Pro-Football-Reference.com). Even with the Broncos lurking, though, it's safe to say that most teams that face a particularly difficult schedule get to square off against an easier one the following year, with the opposite being true for those teams toiling against the league's best week after week.

A tough schedule isn't easy to predict, but once it has come to town, it's usually easy to see the impact it has had. Since 1991, teams that faced one of the five toughest schedules in a given season — again using Pro-Football-Reference.com as the measure of schedule strength — declined by 1.6 wins compared to the previous season. Meanwhile, teams that got to face one of the five easiest schedules improved by a whopping 2.5 wins over that same time frame. Of course, they also declined by an average of 1.4 wins the year after that friendly slate; it's just too difficult to get cream puffs year after year.

The evidence of the impact here isn't quite as noticeable. The teams that got the friendliest slates in 2011 were a bunch of studs, as the Packers, Patriots, Saints, and Texans had four of the five easiest schedules in football. The only also-ran in the group was Tennessee. The teams with last year's five easiest schedules were the Broncos, Steelers, Chargers, Bengals, and the team that probably thinks I'm picking on them by now, the Colts.

Meanwhile, the poor Rams continued to face an onslaught of excellent teams; after facing the league's toughest schedule in 2011, they fell only to second in 2012. The Buccaneers, Giants, Vikings, and Bears filled out the ranks in 2011, with the Cardinals pacing the league in 2012, just ahead of the Rams, 49ers, Cowboys, Seahawks, and those pesky Lions.

There are other metrics that help gain a better understanding of a team's underlying performance and talent level — information on fumble recovery rates and injury data comes to mind — but we're off to a good start here. The advanced metrics aren't enough to bring a team down on its own, as the 49ers showed last year (even as they declined by 1.5 wins during the regular season), but they provide a good starting point for discussion. I'll be discussing these teams more at length as the year goes along, but at the moment, it appears that the numbers would expect a steep decline from the Colts and a moderate one from the Vikings, with big steps from the Lions and Panthers in their stead.

FOOTNOTES
  1. I didn't predict that any of those three would; the closest I came was in predicting a .500 or so season for the Vikings, which led to Vikings fans actually calling me an idiot on Twitter for saying that their team would approach competency. That's how unlikely those sorts of leaps seemed this time last year.
  2. "Should" is a tough word if you're exceedingly skeptical of analytics, and it's a fair criticism. Just keep in mind that "should" doesn't mean that the numbers were right or wrong, but instead, that your level of "#### happens" was particularly friendly or unfriendly that year. The 2011 Chiefs were a 7-9 team that "should" have gone 4-12 by the numbers, but they won the game against the Chargers where Philip Rivers fumbled on a kneeldown and got to play Caleb Hanie and Kyle Boller. In 2012, the breaks didn't go their way, and, well …
  3. Let's use this space as the annual reminder to avoid confusing "regression toward the mean" and the "gambler's fallacy." The gambler's fallacy holds that a random event is "due" to happen because it hasn't happened in a while. That's why casinos put up the big board of recent numbers next to roulette tables, in the hopes of convincing rubes that a red number is due after four or five black numbers hit. The spins are independent, and so red is just as likely to hit as black is on any given hand, regardless of what's already happened. "Regression toward the mean" suggests that a prior event has no useful insight into predicting whether a random event will happen again in future tries, and that the most likely outcome over the next number of trials will be an average expectation. For roulette, regression toward the mean would see those four consecutive black spins and suggest that the next four spins will see two black numbers and two red numbers hit. Because it's so unlikely that four black numbers will come up again, even though you might get regression "past" the mean (which would be something like four red numbers hitting), the vast majority of outcomes will see a regression toward the mean.
  4. This counts San Francisco's tie with St. Louis as a half-win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KC under 7 (+125). They could be on par with San Diego this year in the AFC West, unfortunately their non-conference games go through the likes of nfc east, indy and buffalo. I see at best a 6 game win season here. Unless they can pull out wins @was or @buf AND sweep the Raiders, the latter being possible I guess, I like my chances.

 
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150)

OVER, Arizona won 5 last-year with garbage at QB.

Atlanta 10 (+110) 10 (-130)

OVER, Atlanta can probably win all 8 of their home games. Can they win 3 on the road?

Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120)

OVER, their division remains beatable and if they stick to a running scheme they can probably sneak 9 wins.

Buffalo 6.5 (+115) 6.5 (-135)

UNDER, they don't have a defense that can close out games.

Carolina 7 (-110) 7 (-110)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Chicago 8.5 (-120) 8.5 (even)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Cincinnati 8.5 (+110) 8.5 (-130)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Cleveland 6 (-130) 6 (+110)

UNDER, while on paper the team looks decent I think their division has their way with this team again.

Dallas 8.5 (+135) 8.5 (-155)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130)

OVER, Peyton Manning himself can win 12 games. This team has a great chance to be #1 seed.

Detroit 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (-110)

UNDER, I'm not a believer in Matt Stafford and can see them choking at 7 games.

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110)

OVER, the core of this team is mainly the same as it was a few years ago. Except now they've got Randall Cobb on offense full-time.

Houston 10 (-130) 10 (+110)

OVER, cakewalk division.

Indianapolis 8.5 (even) 8.5 (-120)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110)

UNDER, it's Jacksonville. There's nothing inspirational about this team and even if MJD has a good year, they'll still probably suck.

Kansas City 7 (-145) 7 (+125)

OVER, Andy Reid combined with Alex Smith make this possible. The talent is definitely there.

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115)

OVER, seems like a perennial Wildcard team to me. Defense lacks but Adrian Peterson can control the pace of a game.

New England 11.5 (+115) 11.5 (-135)

UNDER, cakewalk division but I don't think this team is a LOCK for 12 wins.

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

NY Giants 9 (even) 9 (-120)

UNDER, not that I don't think the Giants could win 10 games. This is just a very competitive division that could come down to the wire.

NY Jets 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110)

UNDER, I'll take this number all day. They haven't done ANYTHING to address that horrendous Offense and if Geno Smith starts it'll probably be too late to win 7 games.

Oakland 5.5 (+120) 5.5 (-140)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Philadelphia 7 (-110) 7 (-110)

OVER, New HC often inspire teams and Philly could win 7 games on their offense alone.

Pittsburgh 9 (-120) 9 (even)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125)

UNDER, Seattle is barking up their tree and this team is no lock for 12 games.

Seattle 10.5 (-110) 10.5 (-110)

UNDER, they can probably win 10 games but 11 is far from a lock. San Francisco keeps them in check.

St. Louis 7.5 (+120) 7.5 (-140)

TOO CLOSE, wouldn't touch.

Tampa Bay 7.5 (-140) 7.5 (+120)

OVER, this team has too much talent NOT to win at least 8 games. Tough division though.

Tennessee 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110)

UNDER, Jake Locker is pure garbage.

Washington 8 (-110) 8 (-110)

OVER, RG3 is the new Pope! Don'tcha know?
 
My 3 team parlay:

OVER on

SEATTLE 10.5

BALTIMORE 8.5

UNDER on

NY JETS 6.5

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SEA - over, this is my lock pick - Automatic 8 wins from homes games leaves only 3 on the road that they have to win and they'll play better on the road this year.

NE - under

SF - under

 
Based on this thread, Vegas is going to make a killing when the Pats win 12 games.
Could happen. 2 against the Jets, Bills and Fins? Yes please.

Games against CLE (at home), Tampa (at home), Carolina... there's 9 (one would think).

 
Pitt under, Bengals and Ravens over.

Pitt is old and I think they are going to struggle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Love Baltimore's rebuilt defense. Love the Bengals young offensive weapons and depth everywhere.
Pouncey and DeCastro could be one of the best young combinations in the NFL.

 
I see a couple folks taking the over with Indy on their lists, but I really think they are due for a regression. Their schedule last year was ridiculous and they have a significantly more difficult lineup in 2013. I don't think they get to 9 wins as the line would suggest. I would take the under.
Oak, Ten x2, Jax x2, SD x2, Mia, KC, AZ are 10 winnable games.

SF, Sea, Hou x2 are 4 likely losses

St. L, Cincy are tough but wouldn't be surprised if they won.

You're are not in the minority though. Lots of people are expecting a serious regression.
Mistype

 
Eminence said:
Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120)

OVER, their division remains beatable and if they stick to a running scheme they can probably sneak 9 wins.
I think Baltimore/Pittsburgh could be the bottom of this division.

Baltimore loses not only Boldin/Ray Lewis/Reed's skills, they most importantly lose their leadership. Don't forget Bernard Pollard, Paul Kruger, Danell Ellerbe and Cary Williams too. They added Dumerville, Canty, Huff, Matt Elam, Arthur Brown. I'm sorry, but that's not even close to balancing out. Will Suggs be the same after the injuries? He wasn't last season, same question with CB Webb. Relying on McKinnie at LT is also a huge question mark. Count me as one that things the Ravens take a big step back.

 
Pitt under, Bengals and Ravens over.

Pitt is old and I think they are going to struggle in the trenches on both sides of the ball. Love Baltimore's rebuilt defense. Love the Bengals young offensive weapons and depth everywhere.
Pouncey and DeCastro could be one of the best young combinations in the NFL.
DeCastro's started 3 games...a bit early, no?
Hence the wording "could be" of course he could flop as well. But considering his ability, draft position, and how many Guards have historically been selected in the 1st round(2013 certainly clouds this) I think he has a great chance to be a difference maker. Combined with one of the best young Centers in the NFL and I don't see the "struggling in the trenches" on the offensive side of the ball and being old.

 
My three overs:

Kansas City - 7

Baltimore - 8.5

Green Bay - 10

My three unders:

Jacksonville - 5

NY Jets - 6.5

San Diego - 7.5

 
KC Under 7 looks pretty good, now that I think about it. Sure, they will be better than last year, but they have some pretty tough games on their schedule (and when you were as bad as they were last year, no games are gimmes or easy wins), and taking Under 7 means they have to go 8-8 or better for you to lose. I don't see it. A lot of it, though, does depend on Oakland and San Diego this year. If both of those teams suck it up royally, and KC can go 3-1 or 4-0 against those two, then maybe they can get to 8 wins or more. But records often do not matter when it comes to AFC West games, so if KC can only manage a 2-4 record in the division, a real possibility, I just don't see them winning 8+.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150) = OVER

Atlanta 10 (+110) 10 (-130) = UNDER

Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120) = need 3 to go over

Buffalo 6.5 (+115) 6.5 (-135) = need 3 to go over

Carolina 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = OVER

Chicago 8.5 (-120) 8.5 (even) = need 3 to go over

Cincinnati 8.5 (+110) 8.5 (-130) = need 1 to go over

Cleveland 6 (-130) 6 (+110) = need 3 to go over

Dallas 8.5 (+135) 8.5 (-155) = need 2 to go over

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130) = need 2 to go over

Detroit 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (-110) = need 1 to go over

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110) = UNDER

Houston 10 (-130) 10 (+110) = UNDER

Indianapolis 8.5 (even) 8.5 (-120) = need 1 to go over

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110) = need 2 to go over

Kansas City 7 (-145) 7 (+125) = OVER

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115) = need 2 to go over

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115) = UNDER

New England 11.5 (+115) 11.5 (-135) = need 3 to go over

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even) = need 1 to go over

NY Giants 9 (even) 9 (-120) = need 4 to tie

NY Jets 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = need 2 to go over

Oakland 5.5 (+120) 5.5 (-140) = need 2 to go over

Philadelphia 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = need 1 to go over

Pittsburgh 9 (-120) 9 (even) = need 4 to tie

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135) = need 3 to go over

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125) = need 4 to go over

Seattle 10.5 (-110) 10.5 (-110) = OVER

St. Louis 7.5 (+120) 7.5 (-140) = need 3 to go over

Tampa Bay 7.5 (-140) 7.5 (+120) = UNDER

Tennessee 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = need 2 to go over

Washington 8 (-110) 8 (-110) = UNDER
Hard delete this thread... oof.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150) = OVER

Atlanta 10 (+110) 10 (-130) = UNDER

Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120) = need 1 to go over

Buffalo 6.5 (+115) 6.5 (-135) = need 1 to go over

Carolina 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = OVER

Chicago 8.5 (-120) 8.5 (even) = need 1 to go over

Cincinnati 8.5 (+110) 8.5 (-130) = OVER

Cleveland 6 (-130) 6 (+110) = UNDER

Dallas 8.5 (+135) 8.5 (-155) = need 1 to go over

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130) = OVER

Detroit 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (-110) = need 1 to go over

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110) = UNDER

Houston 10 (-130) 10 (+110) = UNDER

Indianapolis 8.5 (even) 8.5 (-120) = OVER

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110) = need 1 to go tie

Kansas City 7 (-145) 7 (+125) = OVER

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115) = OVER

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115) = UNDER

New England 11.5 (+115) 11.5 (-135) = need 1 to go over

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even) = OVER

NY Giants 9 (even) 9 (-120) = UNDER

NY Jets 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = OVER

Oakland 5.5 (+120) 5.5 (-140) = UNDER

Philadelphia 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = OVER

Pittsburgh 9 (-120) 9 (even) = UNDER

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135) = OVER

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125) = need 2 to go over

Seattle 10.5 (-110) 10.5 (-110) = OVER

St. Louis 7.5 (+120) 7.5 (-140) = need 1 to go over

Tampa Bay 7.5 (-140) 7.5 (+120) = UNDER

Tennessee 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = need 1 to go over

Washington 8 (-110) 8 (-110) = UNDER
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arizona 5.5 (+130) 5.5 (-150) = OVER

Atlanta 10 (+110) 10 (-130) = UNDER

Baltimore 8.5 (-140) 8.5 (+120) = UNDER

Buffalo 6.5 (+115) 6.5 (-135) = UNDER

Carolina 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = OVER

Chicago 8.5 (-120) 8.5 (even) = UNDER

Cincinnati 8.5 (+110) 8.5 (-130) = OVER

Cleveland 6 (-130) 6 (+110) = UNDER

Dallas 8.5 (+135) 8.5 (-155) = UNDER

Denver 11.5 (+110) 11.5 (-130) = OVER

Detroit 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (-110) = UNDER

Green Bay 10 (-110) 10 (-110) = UNDER

Houston 10 (-130) 10 (+110) = UNDER

Indianapolis 8.5 (even) 8.5 (-120) = OVER

Jacksonville 5 (-130) 5 (+110) = UNDER

Kansas City 7 (-145) 7 (+125) = OVER

Miami 7.5 (-135) 7.5 (+115) = OVER

Minnesota 7.5 (-110) 7.5 (+115) = UNDER

New England 11.5 (+115) 11.5 (-135) = OVER

New Orleans 9 (-120) 9 (even) = OVER

NY Giants 9 (even) 9 (-120) = UNDER

NY Jets 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = OVER

Oakland 5.5 (+120) 5.5 (-140) = UNDER

Philadelphia 7 (-110) 7 (-110) = OVER

Pittsburgh 9 (-120) 9 (even) = UNDER

San Diego 7.5 (+115) 7.5 (-135) = OVER

San Francisco 11.5 (+105) 11.5 (-125) = OVER

Seattle 10.5 (-110) 10.5 (-110) = OVER

St. Louis 7.5 (+120) 7.5 (-140) = UNDER

Tampa Bay 7.5 (-140) 7.5 (+120) = UNDER

Tennessee 6.5 (-110) 6.5 (-110) = OVER

Washington 8 (-110) 8 (-110) = UNDER
17 = Under

15 = Over

 
Mildly interesting that the 4 highest totals all covered the over (Denver, New England, San Francisco, Seattle) and 3 of the 4 lowest totals covered the under (Jacksonville, Oakland, xx-Arizona-xx, Cleveland).

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top