Official Texans vs. Jags Game Thread, 12/30/2018

[Keith]

It's a good point about the scheduling. The Texans clearly benefited from an easy slate of opponents this season. Next season? They get the Patriots and Ravens on the schedule (while facing the rotation of division opponents from the AFC West and NFC South).

[Arky]

Early line = Texans by 2½ over the Colts.

Others:

Dallas by 2½ over Seattle

Baltimore 2½ to 3 over LAC

Chicago 5½ over Philly

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Arky

Early line = Texans by 2½ over the Colts.

Others:

Dallas by 2½ over Seattle

Baltimore 2½ to 3 over LAC

Chicago 5½ over Philly

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, thankfully, since I have more than enough problems as it is, but if I were a betting man, I would wong the shit out of those three 2.5 point dogs.

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by chuck

If I were a betting man, and I'm not, thankfully, since I have more than enough problems as it is, but if I were a betting man, I would wong the shit out of those three 2.5 point dogs.

Road teams are typically bad plays in the playoffs but not necessarily the first round. Parlay all four road dogs and I'd bet you'd get 2-3 winners. Even if they lose the game, they could beat the spread.

[HPF Bob]

So the Texans got last place last year and because of that got to beat the Broncos and Browns (last place teams from a year ago). The Colts went 1-1 against the Raiders and Bengals. The Titans went 0-2 against the Ravens and Chargers. That means every team went 9-5 against their identical schedule and the division was handed to the Texans and the playoffs to the Colts via artificial parity.

Except Cleveland and Denver went 13-18-1 this year while Cincy and Oakland went 10-22, implying the Colts had an easier schedule than the Texans had.

At the beginning of each season, people print "strength of schedule" columns as to why Team X will be better and Team Y will collapse and it all looks like crap by the end of the year. You can't base your team's success on the previous year's results (except New England).

Personally, I love how they select opponents. It's like the Electoral College in that it's a little screwy but ultimately is the best and fairest option out there.

I remember going through almost 20 years of NFL schedules with the Cowboys and Raiders in their primes never playing a meaningful game against each other.

Screw that. I want to see everyone *have* to play everyone eventually and this guarantees you face every conference opponent at least once every three years and every non-conference opponent at least once every four years. Plus, it guarantees every division winner will be seeing four other division champs the following season each year.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Road teams are typically bad plays in the playoffs but not necessarily the first round. Parlay all four road dogs and I'd bet you'd get 2-3 winners. Even if they lose the game, they could beat the spread.

Arky knows what I would do. Take the dogs (who I think are likely to win outright in each case), tease them up 6 points and parlay the three.

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

Except Cleveland and Denver went 13-18-1 this year while Cincy and Oakland went 10-22, implying the Colts had an easier schedule than the Texans had.

At the beginning of each season, people print "strength of schedule" columns as to why Team X will be better and Team Y will collapse and it all looks like crap by the end of the year. You can't base your team's success on the previous year's results (except New England).

Personally, I love how they select opponents. It's like the Electoral College in that it's a little screwy but ultimately is the best and fairest option out there.

I remember going through almost 20 years of NFL schedules with the Cowboys and Raiders in their primes never playing a meaningful game against each other.

Screw that. I want to see everyone *have* to play everyone eventually and this guarantees you face every conference opponent at least once every three years and every non-conference opponent at least once every four years. Plus, it guarantees every division winner will be seeing four other division champs the following season each year.

I have no problem with you liking the scheduling for being 'screwy'. I also have no big problem with the scheduling myself. I was pointing out the way the NFL and the media trumpet worst to first stories is disingenuous since the rules are made to create those stories.

But the idea that purposely giving some teams easier schedules is the fairest way to do things is absurd.

[barrett]

I also think it's hilarious that Frank Reich explained away his boneheaded move in the first game against us by saying he'd never play for a tie. And right now today if he'd taken the tie in that game he'd have won the division and be preparing for a home playoff game.

The media has pushed a narrative that has been picked up by 'aggressive' young coaches that going for it on 4th down is always good and not going is always cowardly. It's too bad there wasn't math that proved by win probability added and subtracted when a team should go for it...oh wait, there are tons of studies that quantify that...

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics...4th-down-study

The truth is that NFL coaches just don't trust math and the nerds who use math. Awesome. I hope Frank Reich is happy that always going for the win is the same as getting 2nd place.

[chuck]

Frank Reich looks like the mandolin player in a bluegrass band that exclusively covers Grateful Dead songs.

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by barrett

I have no problem with you liking the scheduling for being 'screwy'. I also have no big problem with the scheduling myself. I was pointing out the way the NFL and the media trumpet worst to first stories is disingenuous since the rules are made to create those stories.

But the idea that purposely giving some teams easier schedules is the fairest way to do things is absurd.

I'll agree with you about the disingenuous part. Is that the League trumpeting this point or merely See-BS? It is generally in the NFL's best interest to see that there's a competitive balance among all members so the bad teams are given slight advantages here and there.

Giving bad teams easier schedules is no more unfair than giving the worst teams earlier spots in the draft order. The Patriots prove the point that schedule alone can't negate the difference between good teams and bad.

Since NFL teams don't have a 31-game schedule, you can't draw a schedule that is totally fair. One team is always going to have an unfair advantage. Therefore, isn't it more sporting to give the bad teams the unfair benefit?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

I'll agree with you about the disingenuous part. Is that the League trumpeting this point or merely See-BS? It is generally in the NFL's best interest to see that there's a competitive balance among all members so the bad teams are given slight advantages here and there.

Giving bad teams easier schedules is no more unfair than giving the worst teams earlier spots in the draft order. The Patriots prove the point that schedule alone can't negate the difference between good teams and bad.

Since NFL teams don't have a 31-game schedule, you can't draw a schedule that is totally fair. One team is always going to have an unfair advantage. Therefore, isn't it more sporting to give the bad teams the unfair benefit?

You cannot make the schedule the same for all 32 teams without a 31 game schedule, but you can make it the same for each team competing inside of a division (what the other major sport do).

As for the Patriots, they prove the point partly through excellence that trumps an unbalanced playing field and partly through competing in the worst division in football throughout their run.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by chuck

Arky knows what I would do. Take the dogs (who I think are likely to win outright in each case), tease them up 6 points and parlay the three.

Looking great so far.

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by chuck

Looking great so far.

I think all four road teams won ATS unless Dallas was less than a two-point favorite. Imagine if that Bears game had the spread riding on that last kick.

[Arky]

Originally Posted by chuck

Looking great so far.

Yep. I hit Chargers +130 and Philly +218 in a two team doggy parlay yesterday for a payout of 6.31:1 (a $10 bet would have won $63.14). That was in my bet points Sportsbook I play at. Not real money, but bet points that can be accumulated. Get enough and you can swap the bet points in for gift cards..... Can't say I enjoyed winning that one, though (that poor Chicago kicker!).

Long shot doggy parlays are one of the things the books fear most. Most people can't handle the constant losing. But.....you only have to hit 10% of the time and you can still make money. It's what I do during baseball season. I bet the numbers, not the teams....

[Arky]

Teams that had the bye week are 2-0 (2-0 ATS) so far on divisional weekend. This suggests that the Pats and Saints should win today although I'd give the Chargers a punchers chance... Earning the bye pays dividends and maybe the Texans can get there one day.....

-----------------------------------------------

Colts kinda came out of nowhere this year. They fell to earth against KC, but they are young so seems they will be the team to beat in the AFC South for many years to come....

-----------------------------------------------

For a team that had no picks in the first two rounds of the draft, the Texans got excellent production this year from the players they did pick up. Let's hope they can keep it rolling with a 1 and two 2's this year.....

[HPF Bob]

Home Field appears to be king in the conference championship round too. Patriot fans are up in arms about Clete Blakeman being named referee for the KC game. Blakeman is the guy who fingered the Patriots and began Deflategate. The Rams are also unhappy about the league's choice of referee for their game against the Saints since their record with him at the whistle is abysmal.

Watch for those phantom flags in the final eight minutes.