SUNDAY
- Thread starter THUNDER
- Start date
Hoping ur right big time as I'm sitting on a $100 MGM Grand ticket from July for the Pack to win the SB, 10 to 1. . . I would love for them to win huge, Jets win sloppy, have the Pack -6 for the SB and try for a juicy middle.
GL
GL
I will be adding alot to this over the next couple days- Why do i like the packers- lets start from a look at the line - before the line came out i had along with the rest of mankind this line at 2.5 to 3 to the bears- low and behold the line opens in the pack favored -i and my friends were shocked we thought it would open at 2.5 and get hammered to a pick- it opens at a key number 3 -and by monday it goes to 3.5 - if anybody knows sharp money to come off 3 on a road fav on a sunday night is not small money its big money like big bets not quanity- people say its because of espn and forum boards- these are people that have no clue- vegas does not follow espn- thats wht in every sport they will have a team with a worse record a fav when it makes no since there is a reason- and in this case who are the books asking money on -they were hoping chicago- not the pack- the sharps did not care they still steamed the pack- i am talking from a line movement stand here not stats or trends- i will bring up some of that stuff later- the main thing i will bring up are jenkins and williams - which both are playing diff roles than they were earlier- especially jenkens because he did not play- back later tonight
if you really thought the bears would be favored by 2.5 or 3 then you need to re-examine your ratings as gb was a shorter dog than that at phil and at atl (who, for some reason, are considered stronger teams than chi)
knew there was no way chi would be favored and figured gb would be laying right around 3 and the action would take it to 2.5 (doubtful) or to 3.5 (where it's gone)
all that said.......i'd be surprised if gb has as easy a time on offense as everyone thinks they'll have.....this team scored 27 total points vs chi in 2 games and looked like garbage vs chi in week 17 when everything was on the line and they were at home, and chi didnt do any exotic things on either side of the ball
to me it doesnt mean much
knew there was no way chi would be favored and figured gb would be laying right around 3 and the action would take it to 2.5 (doubtful) or to 3.5 (where it's gone)
all that said.......i'd be surprised if gb has as easy a time on offense as everyone thinks they'll have.....this team scored 27 total points vs chi in 2 games and looked like garbage vs chi in week 17 when everything was on the line and they were at home, and chi didnt do any exotic things on either side of the ball
to me it doesnt mean much
So if it was game 14 and the pack are 10-4 and chicago were 11-3 the pack would be favored -no way
On a high profile game like this with a huge betting city like chicago it means alot-
You are correct on philly and atlanta thats why i was on the pack ml both games - those lines were soft- and so is this one - but by vegas opening at 3 it really says something-im just sharing info on why i like a game this much- there are other factors this is a big one-by the way 2 of my buddies are from and live in chicago guess who they like
Thunder.............
Maybe you can give your opinion on why the Packers had such a hard time beating the Bears in the must win game in week 17...........
I like GB but I cant get over the fact at how close that game was when GB really needed it and they could only muster 10 points at home............
the previous 4 games the Bears defense gave up,34,14,36 and 20.................
Just cant get over the fact that GB had such a hard time scoring at home in a must win game...........
Thanks
Maybe you can give your opinion on why the Packers had such a hard time beating the Bears in the must win game in week 17...........
I like GB but I cant get over the fact at how close that game was when GB really needed it and they could only muster 10 points at home............
the previous 4 games the Bears defense gave up,34,14,36 and 20.................
Just cant get over the fact that GB had such a hard time scoring at home in a must win game...........
Thanks
yes
they were already favored this year in chicago this year
some teams no matter how ass bad they are, are considered good and betting favorites no matter what their on the field performance suggests (see the chargers, favs in all 16 games this year) and some teams no matter how good they play, are considered betting dogs (see the bears/lions this year)
in this case, the packers were/are a betting favorite since sept and a public team while the bears (also a public team) were considered betting dogs all year (see their soft lines of 3 in most games including buff-atl-etc, etc)
wont make any game guarantees other than the line is right where i thought it would be (based on how these teams are perceived) but not where it should be (based on on the field performance all year)
Absolutely the Pack would be favored:
9/27 2-0 Packers at 2-0 Bears: Packers were 3 point favorites
11/28 7-3 Eagles at 7-3 Bears: Eagles were 3 point favorites
12/12 10-2 Patriots at 9-3 Bears: Patriots were 3 point favorites.
In fact the only time the Bears were favored against a team with a winning record all year was hosting the Jets on 12/26, and that was by a scant point and a half. Heck the 6-3 Bears went into Miami to take on the 5-4 Dolphins and were 2.5 point dogs to their 3rd string quarterback!
gjn is dead-on in saying that the Pack has been a public favorite the entire season while the Bears have not. Pack was favored in 13 of the 16 games regular season (7-6 ATS in those games). Bears were only favored in 8 (3-4-1 ATS in those games). Over the last 10 games (i.e. since the bye week), Bears are 7-2-1 ATS (3-1 as a dog). That says that the public has been consistently underestimating them.
Also agree with gjn in that I'm not saying the Bears win this game (think it's 50/50), but the line is completely consistent with how the public has valued these teams all year.
Don't forget that the Packers are a "world wide" team.
NFL playoffs, and the Super Bowl, are bet across the globe by even casual punters. The Packers are the most widely recognized team in the NFL, world wide. They get love by default.
I also think people put way too much stock in the week 17 game.
All you hear is that Chicago didn't show anything and still almost won. Green Bay had to win, and could barely pull it off.
Is it quite possible that Green Bay just had a bad day? That happens.
Do we really believe Seattle was "better" than New Orleans? Hey, they won, and that's what counts, and Chicago might win Sunday.
That doesn't mean the past two meetings were some cryptic window that everyone should have seen through to pick the Bears this week.
NFL playoffs, and the Super Bowl, are bet across the globe by even casual punters. The Packers are the most widely recognized team in the NFL, world wide. They get love by default.
I also think people put way too much stock in the week 17 game.
All you hear is that Chicago didn't show anything and still almost won. Green Bay had to win, and could barely pull it off.
Is it quite possible that Green Bay just had a bad day? That happens.
Do we really believe Seattle was "better" than New Orleans? Hey, they won, and that's what counts, and Chicago might win Sunday.
That doesn't mean the past two meetings were some cryptic window that everyone should have seen through to pick the Bears this week.
that was early in the season come on guys - if they were playing for something late in the season with the records they have at chicago bears would be a 3 fav-
Yes the Bears/Packers game at Soldier was early in the season, but I don't know how you can ignore the Eagles/Bears game at the end of November. Two teams with identical records, both fighting it out for playoff spots. Yet the Bears were 3 point dogs at home. But as the outcome indicated, it wasn't a case of Vegas goading the public into taking the Bears. It was much more a case of the betting public in the grip of Vick fever. I just think the same thing is happening here with the Pack after their last 4 weeks (and particularly after the last 2).
But no need to belabor the point; we obviously disagree and that's fine.
Hate being on the other side of you, but I can at least wish you good luck on your over.:toast:
But no need to belabor the point; we obviously disagree and that's fine.
Hate being on the other side of you, but I can at least wish you good luck on your over.:toast:
i dont know the only way it happens is if there are alot of buy backs across four- the sharps and public are betting the pack- the sharps early at 3
and the little guys now until sunday- this line is soft -if the sharps or the hitters were on chicago the line would of dipped early out of the shoot instead it got pounded to the pack-off the number 1 key number 3 -we will see but doubt it.
and the little guys now until sunday- this line is soft -if the sharps or the hitters were on chicago the line would of dipped early out of the shoot instead it got pounded to the pack-off the number 1 key number 3 -we will see but doubt it.
opcorn2Quick question regarding the over/under....
week 17 total 43.5...13 points scored
previous meeting total 45.5...37 points scored
Last year...21-14 and 21-15
Last 4 games no team has broken 21 points.
Horrible field, temperature in the 20's, probably some wind...yet....
They open the o/u at 43.5 and it stays there
I know GB put on an offensive display last week as did the Bears, but it looks like the line is begging for under action and from what I see on the net that's what the vast majority is leaning.
Thoughts?
week 17 total 43.5...13 points scored
previous meeting total 45.5...37 points scored
Last year...21-14 and 21-15
Last 4 games no team has broken 21 points.
Horrible field, temperature in the 20's, probably some wind...yet....
They open the o/u at 43.5 and it stays there
I know GB put on an offensive display last week as did the Bears, but it looks like the line is begging for under action and from what I see on the net that's what the vast majority is leaning.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
