It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


American Football: Carolina-Chicago game

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:15 AM
I just saw something I don't believe I've seen in my nearly 3 decades of looking at football lines. And mind you, this is my first year in total football betting retirement, even though it DID cost me $3,000 not to bet the USC-Texas game.

But I looked at the early numbers for next weekend's four games. Anyone wanna guess what the over-under is on the Carolina-Chicago game? If so, take a few minutes before you scroll down.

It is 30-1/2. That is the lowest over/under number I have ever seen on a pro football game. And yeah, I know, the offenses can't score that many points, but there are many ways of scoring points. The 1985 Bears--who unquestionably had the greatest defense I ever saw (yeah, recent Ravens, you were awesome, too, but not like that year's Bears)
--put a ton of points on the board with their defense. I remember their beating Dallas something like 44-0, almost entirely on defense.

30-1/2. Amazing. Doesn't Carolina HAVE to open it up SOME? I mean, it's at Chicago, lunatic fans, probably wretched temperatures AND wretched winds. They can't really try to win a defensive war there, CAN THEY? (All you experts, please enlighten me.)


posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:03 PM
I'm not so sure that they have ther personnel on offense to win the game in Chicago. But that's just me. They have Smith, possibly the best reciever in the league this season. But, who else to recieve the ball. They have Delhomme, an adequate QB, but the whole passing game should be neutralized in th eswirling winds of Soldier Field. That leaves us with the running game. Davis isn't playing, so it's down to DeShaun Foster and Nick Goings. But, the best defense in the league will be able keep them from Goings any where, by keying on the run.

Of course, I may be wrong, after all, the Chicago offense has to show up, too.

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:08 PM
With the point spreads for next week where they presently are, the computer only likes one game well enough to bet. Here are the current spreads, according to, and what the computer says the true spreads should be:

(1) Real spread: Seattle minus 9
Computer sez: Seattle minus 4

(2) Real spread: Denver minus 3.5
Computer sez: Denver minus 5

(3) Real spread: Indianapolis minus 9.5
Computer sez: Pick 'em (I say: W.T.F.???)

(4) Real spread: Chicago minus 3

Computers are usually adjusted to take into account end-of-year games where a team wasn't really trying--e.g., the last two Indi games. I'm at a loss to explain how Pitt could be a pick at Indi, but the fact they don't have that game starred to BET doubtless reflects the fact the spread is skewed by those last 2 games.

And while, probably in disagreement with the rest of y'all, I can see making Carolina a favorite, I would make them a 3-point favorite.

This computer has been VERY accurate, so far. Is there something in individual MATCHUPS that justifies the "pick 'em" in the Pitt-Indi game? And how in the world can the computer pick Carolina by NINE on the road at one of the most hostile forums in the game?

Of course, in January of 1989, I lost $1,000 on the f'ing Bears, and should have lost much more, when they hosted the Niners in the NFC Title game, with a wind chill of something like 30 below, and the Niners were three-point FAVORITES, which I just couldn't believe.

It had opened with the Bears as three-point favorites, and it takes tens of millions of dollars to move a spread in a conference title game one team by three to the other team by three. Also, betting AGAINST the public, as I did on that game, will in the long-term make you a ton in pro football. So I bet my grand on the Bears and cursed myself as a coward for not borrowing money and betting more like $10,000.

Thank god I didn't do that. Final score. Niners 28, Bears 3. And that score DOES reflect the one-sidedness of the game.

The Niners went on to very nearly lose to a not-that-good Bengals team in the big one, but they mutilated the Bears, at Soldiers Field, in arctic weather that the Niners were supposed to fall apart in.

So, is that supposed to happen again? Is that what the computer is saying? And is that a rational expectation? I can't see it. I see Carolina winning, but by THAT much? Wouldn't dream of laying that many, even if you gave me 5-2 odds in exchange for all those points. No way, never.


posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:29 AM
isn't the average points for NFL games something like 41?

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:26 AM
Ah... a battle of former UL greats Tillman and Delhomme can't wait to see the outcome

posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:19 PM
Yes, Toejam, something like that. And I saw over-unders on the San Diego Charger teams of the early 80's, after their defense had still gone to hell but while Fouts was still the best QB in the game (ok, I live in Nor Cal, so all you Montana fans jump on me....), often getting nearly 60. And routinely going "over." "First one to 50 wins." THOSE were fun games to bet "over" on. Ahh, memories.

Anyway, obviously the totals can vary dramatically, depending on the circumstances. But I believe this is THE lowest I've ever seen. And since neither team has a 1985 Bears-esque defense that can be counted upon to score, oh, 24 points by itself, I'd have a VERY hard time betting "over." It easily could be 3-3 going to the 4th, no?

Can you imagine the game plans?


posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:29 AM
Really looking forward to this one only because I've historically been a huge Bears fan. I think Carolina will play very conservatively and expect a lot of punts. They'll play close to the vest and wait for Chicago to make THE BIG MISTAKE (whatever that turns out to be).Look for the halftime score to be something like 3-0.

Grossman likes to air it out and will take some chances. My heart says Chicago, but my head thinks Carolina will pull this off.

Anyone else think that CBS would prefer not to see the Colts and Seattle in the Super Bowl?

[edit for typo]

[Edited on 1/12/06 by yeahright]

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 02:23 PM
Too many players without playoff experience for the Bears imo. Panthers to pull it out late.


posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:29 PM
Although the Panthers suffered a 13-3 setback at Soldier Field this season, i think it will be a different story this time around. The last time the Chicago Bears won a playoff game was way back in 1995, when they beat the Vikings and the way the Panthers shut-out the Giants last week, i think they could just sneak the win. But they will have to put in a great performance.

I'm looking forward to seeing Benson getting some touches for the Bears, if he does make the field he could prove really hard to stop.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 04:52 PM
Playoff experience is vital but I think the Panthers will have a hard time on offense. Davis is not playing and even if he was the Bears' front is AWESOME. Delhomme will need a big game against a stout defense. Smith will be keyed on I am sure. I might just take the under on this one. WOW 30-1/2 that is insane.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 08:08 AM
I say that Chicago will have no problem with the Panthers. The D i sthe difference.

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Are you saying that although Carolina's D is very good, Chicago's is other-worldly or close to their 1985 D? THAT I'll have to see to believe. Don't forget, man, Carolina has a very fine D.


posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:21 PM
A victory for Carolina.. what else can i say?

posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:24 PM
Well, so much for under 30.5. It was just barely under 50.5, roflmao! But the computer wound up starring Pittsburgh in the last day or two, as well as its week-long starred pick of Carolina, so it has 2 more wins and zero losses. Which means that between these playoff games and the USC-Texas game, I would have made a ton, were it not for my "retirement" on account of having gotten killed (over $13,000) over the course of the past two seasons.

BUT.... I'm not within 13,000 miles of being rich, and I can afford neither that sort of losses, nor the enormous toll on my heart and nerves which such losses brought me. So even though that computer's green stars would have me way the hell ahead for the big bowl games and the playoffs this year, I'm probably STILL better off for being retired. As I said before, Texas was BEHIND the spread before they made those two fabulous drives in the final two minutes courtesy of the superhuman Vince Young.

I noted on another post that Denver, despite their great home field advantage, is only a 3.5-point favorite over #6-seed Pittsburgh. Seattle opened at 5.5 points, but immediate fell to being a 4.5-point favorite. This is a guess on my part, but I think the computer may wind up liking Seattle. Carolina is now down to their #3 running back, and several guys went down on defense in the second half, though I don't know how badly they're hurt. Surely Seattle's defensive game plan can't be nearly as horrible regarding Steve Smith as Chicago's was.

Did any of y'all hear Salisbury and Ditka ragging on the Bears after the game? It was great. Salisbury: "Anyone who thinks this team's defense is like the '85 Bears' defense should be drug tested." :bounce:


posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:27 PM
Correction: I mean, of course, Young's drives in the final 5 or 6 minutes.


posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 02:27 PM
Foster has a broken leg, so thats him out and Goings in. Goings is not a featured back, but he filled in last season with five 100yrd rushing games. But i bet they would still have liked Davis or Foster on the field.

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:02 PM
Well, I'm obviously not good at my picks, I was telling everyone that this would be a blowout by Chicago. Yikes!

I like Seattle to make it to the Superbowl. But, the Panthers have been surprising me lately, so we'll just have to see...

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:25 PM
I still haven't heard how numerous, or how extensive, the Panthers' defensive injuries are. That's obviously a huge factor. And as great as Delhomme is in the playoffs, he needs a good running back. Goings has looked good, but he sure ain't Davis or Foster.

Still, they play so damn well, I'll believe they're done when the clock hits 0:00, and not one second before.


new topics

top topics


log in