You are here

Seahawks 28 ...

Replies

DaddyO's picture
Submitted by DaddyO on

Didn't get to watch most of the game, but what I did watch was fun to see.

Let's see how they play against a REAL NFL team before we get too excited. To borrow a Vin Scully appellation, the Rams played like the Little Sisters Of The Poor.

tb26's picture
Submitted by tb26 on

Saw the game live (first time in a couple years, saved up for a $65 nosebleed seat...)

While it wasn't pretty in the beginning, both sides of the ball got it going in the second half. 

And while it is true that the Rams are not very good, they played hard through the first half, but were just beaten down by a good team. The defense was stingy and hard-hitting (curry and wilson were standouts, and even jackson came to play), the offense was out of sync mostly and still put up 28 (they should have put up 40), special teams looked good with Mare booming touchback after touchback...

I think they had a good first game, crowd was wild wild wild, as usual. 

Mostly, they controlled the line of scrimmage all day, both sides of the ball. Win the line of scrimmage, win the game.

tb26

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

Millen was asked, what would have happened if the Rams hadn't had a penalty on the FG block and the half was 7-7?

Millen's reply, halftime would have been chaotic -- but the longer you play, the more the better team emerges.

Seattle had a yardage edge of like 420-130 halfway through the 4th.

tb26's picture
Submitted by tb26 on

Yeah, I heard that question (and 20 others in the same tone)...

They wouldn't have HAD a blocked field goal without the penalty...they had 12 guys, all bull-rushing up the middle. It would have been a miracle if the DIDN'T block it. They knew it immediately too, as most of the defensive players stayed right there by the original line of scrimmage all through the review and before. The crowd was confused, but the players were clearly aware of it. It wasn't a block, and it wasn't a 14-point swing. It was a penalty. It WAS a 4-point gain though, with the first down on penalty erasing a sure 3-pointer, and then Hass rocked the house again!

I think a very good game is in store next week. I will be watching Curry and Wilson on every defensive play for sure...

Go Hawks!

TB

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

They are a legit player on the field.  I remember a 3rd-and-1 in Seahawks territory that became a 3rd-and-11.  That is yardage in the scorebook and it is points on the scoreboard.   Wow.

OOBF's picture
Submitted by OOBF on

Actually means that the Seahawks are favored to win the game by 2 points.  Las Vegas usually gives the home team a "Free" 3 points so to speak.  So if you are the home team and are favored by less than 3 then you are actually the inderdog ;)

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

Are you saying that you could cakewalk to a profit each year just by betting 100% road?

I'm not countering you - just curious.  That's the first time I've heard the three-points thing.

.............

Your general point is well taken, that the Seahawks are a good solid 50% this weekend.  Should be 900 kinds of fun.

SABR Matt's picture

...you can't get a profit by betting all road teams because home teams win 54% of their games, even in football.  That's why the oddsmakers give the home team a 3-point edge on their spread.  Because the average home team wins by 3 points.

jemanji's picture
Submitted by jemanji on

One of us is missing the point here :- )

The home field in the NFL has got to be worth a lot more than 3.  If the Niners are -1 at home they'd be like +4 neutral field.

Oobie was saying, or we thought he was saying, that in reality the Seahawks will probably win in San Francisco, but that the oddsmakers give 3 to split the bettors who like home teams.

 

SABR Matt's picture

No...when the odds say -1, that means the Vegas spread is actually +2 in a neutral field nd would be +5 if the Hawks were home.  IOW, -1 means that San Fran is favored by 1 point...but that's because there are 3 points given to them for being a home team and the actual odds in a neutral field would be +2 to the Hawks...or +5 if they were home (roughly).

Cool Papa Bell's picture

If betting on all road games was a sure thing, wouldn't everyone be doing it, at least until the bookies were fired? ;)

What he meant was that the Seahawks would be favored by 2 on a neutral field but San Fran is favored by one in this game because they have home field advantage. If it were played in Seattle then the 'Hawks would be favored by five (if they are credited with the same 3 point home field edge as other teams which isn't necessarily the case; with the reputation of that stadium they might get a slightly larger one).

Leave a Reply

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <i> <b> <img> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <div> <strong> <p> <br> <u>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.