Washington Redskins Vs Dallas Cowboys 10-27-2014 0 views

Personally, I would not touch the spread. Washington is that bad and Dallas does seem to be that good. They are at home as well. The wildcard here, if RJIII plays, he could make a difference. As of Saturday, McCoy will get the start tonight. However, RJIII is listed as questionable. With 9.5, Washington will keep it in the current spread. McCoy, I doubt it. If RJII does play and he should if able, the spread will probable drop to +7.5 to +8pts. Really what it comes down to, if RJII is able, they will play him, because, it is a must win. I think "game time" is the best time to bet on this one. Other than last week against a bad Tennessee team, The skins have lost 3 straight double digit games, Arizona by 10 (30-20), Seattle by 10 (27-17), Giants by 31 (45-15).

Dallas will win this game and it is going to be bad for the Skins. And I am a die-hard fan of the Skins.

I am thinking about some overs for this one.

I think the score will be 38-20 range with most of Washington Scoring late in the game. Dallas wins.

Even with McCoy I will take my chances on the Redskins here (homer pick FYI, life long fan)

Division Game and head to head the dog in this game has some strong trends keeping it with in the number. Skins strong enough on the lines to stay in this one until the end

Washington +10 for me

@ Chico1856

Ok, I will concede. Here are the games from 2009 onward. Dallas covered twice and the rest of the games did not cover. Now, I am nervous about my O/Us for tonight.

12/22/13	Sun	DAL	24	WAS	23	3/51½	WAS/U
10/13/13	Sun	WAS	16	DAL	31	-5½/52½	DAL/U
12/30/12	Sun	DAL	18	WAS	28	-3½/48½	WAS/U
11/22/12	Thu	WAS	38	DAL	31	-3½/47	WAS/O
11/20/11	Sun	DAL	27	WAS	24		WAS/O
09/26/11	Mon	WAS	16	DAL	18	-3½/45	WAS/U
12/19/10	Sun	WAS	30	DAL	33	-9½/44	WAS/O
09/12/10	Sun	DAL	7	WAS	13	4/40½	WAS/U
12/27/09	Sun	DAL	17	WAS	0	7/42½	DAL/U
11/22/09	Sun	WAS	6	DAL	7	-10½/41½	WAS/U

Washington is a team with no QB. Besides stating trends, no one has any legit reasoning that backs the decision to go with Washington. It is a division game. It was a division game when Dallas played New York too. Do you want to talk yourself into betting a bad team, or one of the leagues best? Is this years Cowboys team the same as last years Cowboys team? (no) Then why would you look to the past for todays answer?

One reason to like the Redskins (and the Under correlatively) is that while the Dallas defense is improved over last year, it is still allowing 4.9 yards per rush. And the Redskins figure to have a run-heavy game plan anyway with Morris and Helu given that the noodle-armed McCoy is starting. So Washington could potentially shorten the game by controlling TOP. I am just giving a reason, I have no play on this game myself and doubt that I will. (but if I do, Skins and/or Under would be my only possibilities).

I think it will be over

 
 
 prime time overs now 20-4. 
 — Gabriel Morency (@sportsrage) October 27, 2014 
  

Edited 10/27/14 at 4:59PM by Logan - No reason listed.

Dallas and over 48.5 are worth the gamble tonight. 34-19 final score.

This post is no longer available.

Hi Logan

"Is this years Cowboys team the same as last years Cowboys team? (no) Then why would you look to the past for today’s answer?"

For me the past is for intangibles, in 2008 and 2009 the Cowboys was better than the Redskins, more better, the handicap was 11 and 10.5, the same yesterday, and Washington played good matches against Cowboys. One team is better than another, of course, much better, but there are rivalries distantly of numbers, there are bad teams that are good against some teams. This things happen in the World of Sport and with the past you can intuit if this situations occur.

A mixture of Washington playing well and Dallas making bad plays at the wrong time. A fumble inside Washingtons 10 and a fumble inside Dallas' 25 ended up being the deciding factors. Dallas was moving the ball and if they did not fumble inside the 10, odds are they score a TD. If they didn't fumble and give the ball to Washington in FG range, no FG would have been kicked.

Two drives that could have had Dallas winning by 10 if there were no fumbles involved. Wins and losses in football are greatly effected by turnovers. Dallas lost that part of the game and in doing so they fumbled away a winnable game.

"Washington is a team with no QB. Besides stating trends, no one has any legit reasoning that backs the decision to go with Washington. It is a division game. It was a division game when Dallas played New York too. Do you want to talk yourself into betting a bad team, or one of the leagues best? Is this years Cowboys team the same as last years Cowboys team? (no) Then why would you look to the past for todays answer?"

It's like most everything else, to a degree. Why do banks/lending institutions want to know your credit history? Why do insurance companies want to know your driving history? Why do many employers want to know your criminal history?

Because, the past when put in to the correct parameters can dictate future results ... to a certain degree.

I only use historical trends, historical statistics and situational handicapping for the NFL and I'm 23-10-2 in this contest for the season.

http://contests.covers.com/sportscontests/officeLeaders.aspx?ID=23303

I could not tell you the first thing about how many yards rushing, receiving or how many receptions a receiver averages ... don't care either. To me, it is more important to look at "situations". Regardless of who was or was not on the Dallas Cowboys team last year or the year before, the team as a whole has always had the same rivalries. So, they will "get up" for some teams more so than others. Revenge is a big factor too. If a team was embarrassed earlier in the year and lost a game that they were supposed to win, the next time they play that team, they will, more than likely, play with more urgency/desire then if they had won that previous game. There is such a thing as "Let Downs" too. If a team wins 3-4 games straight and they are tough fought games, then they have a game against an 0-6 Oakland team and they are favored by 10, this might be a good spot for a "Let Down" as the team is not playing with the grit they were playing with the weeks before. Travel is a part of this dynamic as well. If a team has 4 road games in a row and they are playing a team that is playing this game at home for the 3rd week straight, that is a factor to consider too. There are various other factors to consider as well, but I'm sure you get the point now that regardless of the individual named players or coaches employed by the Dallas Cowboys this year, situations matter and should always be considered when handicapping.

While I'm here, I will list some trends, stats and situational aspects for Washington/against Dallas and why I bet Washington last night ...

- Washington is 14-4 (last 18 games) against the spread vs. Cowboys (obviously they get up for the Cowboys)

- Washington has the second best yardage differential in the NFL

- When Dallas is favored after winning their last game they are 3-14 against the spread the last 17 situations like this

- Dallas as home favorite is 7-20 against the spread the last 27 games they were favored playing at home

- When Dallas is favored on Monday Night Games, they are 1-10 against the spread

- The DOG in all Dallas games is 50-21 against the spread the last 4.5 years (blindly betting the dog is profitable in Dallas games)

- Last night's game was the 5th HOME game for Dallas out their last 6 games

- Dallas is not good when playing teams in their division ... they are 21-32 (last 53 games = 3.5 years) against the spread.

There are a few more, but again, I think you get my point ... the information above spans 5 +/- years, which covers many different players and different coaching staffs for both teams, probably to the tune of 60-70% turnover or more, yet, the trends, stats and situations hold a high percentage of consistency and value. With all of the above said, obviously, when one notices that a trend, stat or situation is changing over time, you make adjustments and weigh that parameter accordingly.

As "up" as they were for the Cowboys, it took tonnes of luck to even end up with 20 points. As I stated in my post before this one, take away those two fumbles in key spots on the field and Washington would not have scored more then 14 while Dallas would likely have scored a TD on the one drive starting at Washingtons 8 yard line. Key momentum draining plays haulted Dallas.

All of the trends, division rivalry talk did nothing to help the Chargers on Thursday in Denver.

Dallas was not as good of a team in years past as they are now. I am not even going to continue with this conversation. I have nothing more to say then that basic style is too lazy to be profitable.

"Blindly betting games" is not how you profit.

Edited 10/28/14 at 4:49PM by Logan - No reason listed.

Say all the would of/could of/should of you want ... but the historical trends, stats and situational aspects held SOLID to their numbers last night. You keep dealing in hypotheticals and I will keep dealing in FACTS and we will see where we end up

Furthermore, I do not recommend blindly betting, but in that specific trend/situation, YES, blindly betting the DOG in all Dallas games for the last 4.5 years would have been PROFITABLE >>> FACT Just like blindly betting on the Seattle Seahawks to win against the spread when playing at home going back 9 years now, is a very profitable 54-25 >>> 68% winners! <<< I'll take it! Now, does that mean that I will automatically take the Seahawks ATS at home? No, but it sure starts my analysis leaning that way ... and once I combine other factors to my analysis, I will make my decision. But, for me, it sure helps having that historical information to work with.

... and as far as San Diego vs Denver. If you notice above ... no, trend, stat or situation is 100%, so, I'm sure that there are many reasons that San Diego lost the game ... trend, stat, situation or otherwise.

But, since you brought it up, there were a few reasons to take Denver ...

- Denver since the beginning of last season are 20-5 straight up with 19 of those wins by 7 points or more (the line was -6.5 to -7 for that game)

- Denver with Manning as a favorite is 25-12 against the spread

- Denver rested some starters late in the game the week before against San Francisco

- San Diego offense rushing yards per attempt = #32 in the NFL

There are several more, but it seems that you don't deal well with FACTS anyways, so I will stop here.

You don't even have any football picks on your profile. FACT

LOL, what a weak response that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the FACTS that I presented to you! What, if I had NFL picks listed on my profile, suddenly, the FACTS that I have shown to you somehow become legitimate, because otherwise, they aren't???

Furthermore, I posted a link to Covers for my season to date NFL picks.

Edited 10/28/14 at 6:44PM by custom2006 - No reason listed.

The most interesting thing about this game is the Cowboys. Why does the team change and yet they still just always crap out as favorites and do so well as the dogs? As custom2006 pointed out, "The DOG in all Dallas games is 50-21 against the spread the last 4.5 years (blindly betting the dog is profitable in Dallas games)." Exactly.

It reminds me of the comic books where the guy that ascends to power suddenly feels undeserving and doesn't perform as well. Same thing here maybe. Maybe Romo doesn't think, deep down, that he is elite material and can only play in the humbling spot. Just a thought. I think that there are plenty of athletes out there that are this way and then others that thrive off of attention (vis versa).

And whoever implied past history doesn't matter for a team hasn't done much gambling. How a team has done in previous seasons matters a lot especially if you have the same QB. The Dallas Cowboys are roughly the same team. They've had the 26th easiest schedule in the league; that is one thing that is creating a misperception of who the Cowboys really are. Consider fading the Redskins moving forward...they just knocked off a false foe and are going to get overrated for it. Get ready to play the Cowboys next time they're an underdog.

I would call my response accurate. If you were so confident in your football knowledge, you would record your picks on here.

The "facts" that you are talking about are accurate as well. If you can go back in time and follow that trend blindly, yes you will profit. With the same level of intelligence, if I can hop into a time machine and go back a few days, I will be able to pick 100% winners.

Those trends are not always going to hold up. 5 years from now the trends could have reversed and while you were pretending to blindly follow them, you lost pretend money.

You have assumed that you know the thoughts inside of my mind. Do I need to go into detail regarding the lack of intelligence you have shown me leading to my "weak response"? I am sorry that I do not feel the need to engage in conversation with you. You were expecting more from me in my last response. Since I will not be replying anymore to you, my advice is to get a life and use your time doing something productive.

You guys can talk about "past history" all that you want. What part of handicapping is "past history" not used? It goes further then trends boys. Start learning the players them selves and types of offenses/defenses each team uses. That will be a start.

Edited 10/28/14 at 7:11PM by Logan - No reason listed.