How to stop the Pats?

[jvan1973]

KC game was awful because the Pats were awful. Not because it was in KC. Also, no Browner that game or Ayers. And that was their last poor game. 5 much better games since with their best game vs Denver.

The only away game they have played since was at buffalo. The bills scored 22 in that game

[amfootball]

The only away game they have played since was at buffalo. The bills scored 22 in that game

lol. You guys and his home field thing. A team is who it is. Good defense travels well and so does Brady's arm when he is inside a dome. I don't know if all you guys have swallowed the same koolaid that says home teams automatically win or that the Pats don't win on the road but they have two road wins this year and have played well at Indy since Brady took the helm in 2001.

[jvan1973]

lol. You guys and his home field thing. A team is who it is. Good defense travels well and so does Brady's arm when he is inside a dome. I don't know if all you guys have swallowed the same koolaid that says home teams automatically win or that the Pats don't win on the road but they have two road wins this year and have played well at Indy since Brady took the helm in 2001.

Defenses play much better at home. Its not opinion.

[amfootball]

Defenses play much better at home. Its not opinion.

So automatic win for Indy then because the Pats will forget how to cover?

[OffensivelyPC]

lol. You guys and his home field thing. A team is who it is. Good defense travels well and so does Brady's arm when he is inside a dome. I don't know if all you guys have swallowed the same koolaid that says home teams automatically win or that the Pats don't win on the road but they have two road wins this year and have played well at Indy since Brady took the helm in 2001.

Forgive me for coming late the the conversation, but are you trying to suggest that home field give no advantage?  Or are you arguing that teams are worse generally in away games than they are when at home?  Because you're insane if you're arguing either.

[Superman]

Forgive me for coming late the the conversation, but are you trying to suggest that home field give no advantage?  Or are you arguing that teams are worse generally in away games than they are when at home?  Because you're insane if you're arguing either.

 

It seems that way, doesn't it?

[jvan1973]

So automatic win for Indy then because the Pats will forget how to cover?

I'm not sure if you have ever been to a game, but its much harder to audible on the road. It gets very loud, thus the home d has an advantage. Obviously its not a guaranteed win, that's just dumb. But to act like home field isn't an advantage is also dumb.

[amfootball]

Forgive me for coming late the the conversation, but are you trying to suggest that home field give no advantage?  Or are you arguing that teams are worse generally in away games than they are when at home?  Because you're insane if you're arguing either.

About a 3 point advantage for the home team. That is what Vegas general gives. There is an advantage but not to the level that some are suggesting here on this thread.

[amfootball]

I'm not sure if you have ever been to a game, but its much harder to audible on the road. It gets very loud, thus the home d has an advantage. Obviously its not a guaranteed win, that's just dumb. But to act like home field isn't an advantage is also dumb.

The better team usually wins and the better team is also the one that handles the elements, crowd noise, etc better. The Pats have been one of the most laser focused teams for the past 13 + years so a road game does not scare me especially in a dome where there are no elements other than noise and where Brady has been historically great.

[OffensivelyPC]

About a 3 point advantage for the home team. That is what Vegas general gives. There is an advantage but not to the level that some are suggesting here on this thread.

An advantage is an advantage.  Period.

[amfootball]

An advantage is an advantage.  Period.

Never said it wasn't. Just the degree of the advantage.

[OffensivelyPC]

Never said it wasn't. Just the degree of the advantage.

One in which not even Vegas can quantify.

[amfootball]

One in which not even Vegas can quantify.

Huh? They do all the time. Historically home field has been worth about 3 points to Vegas.

[OffensivelyPC]

Huh? They do all the time. Historically home field has been worth about 3 points to Vegas.

So in all instances, home field advantage only gives you 3 points?  What about the teams that are bottom of the league?  They're only going to score 3 more points than if they were home?  Which by the way, it's a 3 point swing one way as compared to a neutral venue, but  if you flop venues, it's a 6 point swing.  But that's not even the point.  Seahawks and the Chiefs are most notable for their home field advantage, always boasted as the hardest fields to play in, yet you give the same 3 points to Jacksonville?  That's hogwash.  

[OffensivelyPC]

And besides, we're talking about spreads in a game, that has nothing to do with what actually happens on the field, which is why home field advantage is not capable of being reduced to points scored or not scored.

[Superman]

You didn't answer the question though. Does Luck throw less INTs at home vs the road?

 

And this NE secondary is much better than the one he faced the last two seasons.

 

These numbers are open to the public. I didn't think you were asking me to do research for you.

 

In 2012, yes, Luck threw fewer INTs at home than on the road. Had a 1.6% INT rate at home, vs 4.1% on the road. Since then, no. In 2013, he was 2.1% at home, 1.0 on the road. And so far this year, he's been 2.4% at home, and 2.2% on the road.

 

However, in 2012, his overall INT rate was 2.8%, but in Gillette, it was 6%. In 2013, his overall INT rate was 1.6%, but in Gillette, it was 9.8%. So, Luck has turned the ball over more in Gillette than he has in general throughout his career. Part of that is because the Pats are really good, but part of it is because it's hard for visiting teams to play well in Gillette. That's clear when you look at the road/home splits for QBs in games against the Pats, and you see that they generally turn the ball over more in Gillette than they do at home. These splits hold up for pretty much every QB in the NFL over the last 15 years. Luck has never faced the Pats away from Gillette, so he doesn't have these splits yet.

 

I agree that the Pats secondary is better. So is Luck (despite his slightly higher INT % this year). So are his receivers (particularly compared to last year's game). So is the playcalling (for the most part). So is the offensive line. 

 

Again, this game is going to be different. I don't think that Belichick just has some magical influence over Luck that will force him to turn the ball over against the Pats. I think Luck's improvement, along with not being in Gillette, should mean better ball security.

[Superman]

And besides, we're talking about spreads in a game, that has nothing to do with what actually happens on the field, which is why home field advantage is not capable of being reduced to points scored or not scored.

 

Bingo.

 

Point spreads are based on what Vegas thinks the public will bet, not what they think the score will be in the game.

[ColtStronger]

Reading through this thread, I'm just thankful that me and my family survived the  blizzard that hit New England last Sunday.  ;)

 

In all seriousness... it was not that bad. At all. The 2013 game was much more impacted by the weather. If the Broncos were that uncomfortable in nearly 40 degree temps with winds that were very manageable, they're in deep trouble. 

 

The way the Patriots played they would have won that game in Denver. I'm not saying it would happen again, and maybe they lose 99 out of 100 games to the Broncos on the road, but last week, last Sunday... didn't matter where they were. If one team executes that well and the other team doesn't, that's all there really is to it. 

You guys are totally missing the point.  Just because it wasn't "bad weather" what you guys live in during the winter months, has no bearring that the conditions of the game last Sunday, didn't have some sort of effect.  Maybe not a huge effect but nonetheless perhaps influenced play, a little bit.  It was not clear sunny skies a high of 75 and no wind.  There was snow on the ground prior to the game, the wind was blowing, and it was 39 degrees, none of which are "ideal" conditions.  Even under ideal conditions the Patriots would still have won most likely.  That wasn't ever a point though.  Don't dig too deep!!  Another point was about home field advantage, which c'mon it doesn't take a genius to figure out teams play better at home.  If you would like to dispute that one, then why does the #1 and 2 seeds get a bye and "home field advantage" in the playoffs!

 

Both points were quite simple.  No need to debate about it.  Who cares if the Patriots beat the Broncos.  Patriots play in Indy come Sunday, I can assure you Tom Brady or Bill Belichek doesn't care what happend last week anymore.  They took care of business and now they're preping for the Colts.  You may want to start worrying about how the spectacular secondary is going deal with the countless weapons and the best offense in the NFL, while at Lucas Oil Stadium.  But you wouldn't be worried about that because home field doesn't mean anything!

[Superman]

The better team usually wins and the better team is also the one that handles the elements, crowd noise, etc better. The Pats have been one of the most laser focused teams for the past 13 + years so a road game does not scare me especially in a dome where there are no elements other than noise and where Brady has been historically great.

 

No one -- least of all, me -- is suggesting that the Pats are going to play terrible because the game is in Indy. That generally doesn't happen to good teams, especially veteran teams. You can have a stinker now and then, but good, veteran teams know how to play on the road.

[ColtStronger]

Never said it wasn't. Just the degree of the advantage.

Believe it or not, it makes a huge difference.  Yes, great teams will win on the road, but the home team controls the tempo usually.  Saints, Seahawks and the Patriots fans should know this more than any1.  Patriots know how to pound the football in bad weather, Colts know how to have a track meet on the turf inside the dome.  All these teams have an incredible 12th man that causes confusion and rattles nerves during tedious moments.  That is a big advantage if you ask me, but my opinion means absolutely nothing to the players who have to play in those situations.

[RockThatBlue]

Belichick won't let this happen. They'll have a constant double team on TY, a safety over the top. Don't waste Revis or Browner on TY one on one. Use Revis on Wayne and Browner on Nicks.

And what did TY do against the Pats in the playoffs?

This will be the best secondary the Colts faced all season because of the Pats' depth and how they mix and match different schemes.

I bet Lucks throws 2 to 3 INT's in this game.

You act like the Pats have shut TY down. I could be wrong but I do believe TY had 100+ yards in both games against the Pats.

[CardiacColts]

Plus most of the fans are high priced SB only fans- business etc. Would love to see it at Lambeau. Can you say Ice Bowl

That still sticks in my head and I can still visualize it.

I love this idea in theory; however, I think it would certainly deter some fans from paying the exorbitant cost of SB tickets. After my wife and I went to the Colts win over KC in the playoffs, we hit the road for Greenbay to make it a true playoff weekend.

Let me say, that my opinion of attending that ice bowl against San Fran is very similar to the way I reminisce about pledging in college. It was the greatest thing that I'd never want to do again. It took a good hour for me to regain feeling in my appendages after that game. It was unbelievably bitter. Compound that with the fact we did that immediately after wearing just short sleeves and jerseys to the colts game the day before, and it was nearly unbearable. Awesome memory, but I don't plan to go to another playoff game at Lambeau for a while .

[ColtStronger]

These numbers are open to the public. I didn't think you were asking me to do research for you.

 

In 2012, yes, Luck threw fewer INTs at home than on the road. Had a 1.6% INT rate at home, vs 4.1% on the road. Since then, no. In 2013, he was 2.1% at home, 1.0 on the road. And so far this year, he's been 2.4% at home, and 2.2% on the road.

 

However, in 2012, his overall INT rate was 2.8%, but in Gillette, it was 6%. In 2013, his overall INT rate was 1.6%, but in Gillette, it was 9.8%. So, Luck has turned the ball over more in Gillette than he has in general throughout his career. Part of that is because the Pats are really good, but part of it is because it's hard for visiting teams to play well in Gillette. That's clear when you look at the road/home splits for QBs in games against the Pats, and you see that they generally turn the ball over more in Gillette than they do at home. These splits hold up for pretty much every QB in the NFL over the last 15 years. Luck has never faced the Pats away from Gillette, so he doesn't have these splits yet.

 

I agree that the Pats secondary is better. So is Luck (despite his slightly higher INT % this year). So are his receivers (particularly compared to last year's game). So is the playcalling (for the most part). So is the offensive line. 

 

Again, this game is going to be different. I don't think that Belichick just has some magical influence over Luck that will force him to turn the ball over against the Pats. I think Luck's improvement, along with not being in Gillette, should mean better ball security.

The biggest improvement from the team has to be on defense though, and that's where the 12th man or home field advantage comes into play the most.  You can hear Luck yelling calls from the seats, but when Brady is under center, you are lucky to hear the person standing beside you.

[CardiacColts]

Oh yeah? What if there's a hurricane on the field?

I just jumped into this thread, so I'm not sure how long the back and forth has gine on for. However, I would have to affirm that in such a case the game would probably be cancelled for everyones safety thus removing any advantage or disadvantage .

[amfootball]

So in all instances, home field advantage only gives you 3 points?  What about the teams that are bottom of the league?  They're only going to score 3 more points than if they were home?  Which by the way, it's a 3 point swing one way as compared to a neutral venue, but  if you flop venues, it's a 6 point swing.  But that's not even the point.  Seahawks and the Chiefs are most notable for their home field advantage, always boasted as the hardest fields to play in, yet you give the same 3 points to Jacksonville?  That's hogwash.  

You are missing the point. It is 3 points on top of who you think the better team is. So for example, if Denver is playing the Titans at a neutral field they are favored by say 14 points. If Denver is playing them in Denver then they are favored by 17. Three points more than what you would think if they were at a neutral field. If the game is in TN then Denver is favored by 11. So Vegas generally gives the home team an extra 3 points for home field advantage. It does not mean the home team is only favored by 3 points no matter the opponent.

[Superman]

You are missing the point. It is 3 points on top of who you think the better team is. So for example, if Denver is playing the Titans at a neutral field they are favored by say 14 points. If Denver is playing them in Denver then they are favored by 17. Three points more than what you would think if they were at a neutral field. If the game is in TN then Denver is favored by 11. So Vegas generally gives the home team an extra 3 points for home field advantage. It does not mean the home team is only favored by 3 points no matter the opponent.

 

 

That's not how Vegas does point spreads.

[amfootball]

These numbers are open to the public. I didn't think you were asking me to do research for you.

 

In 2012, yes, Luck threw fewer INTs at home than on the road. Had a 1.6% INT rate at home, vs 4.1% on the road. Since then, no. In 2013, he was 2.1% at home, 1.0 on the road. And so far this year, he's been 2.4% at home, and 2.2% on the road.

 

However, in 2012, his overall INT rate was 2.8%, but in Gillette, it was 6%. In 2013, his overall INT rate was 1.6%, but in Gillette, it was 9.8%. So, Luck has turned the ball over more in Gillette than he has in general throughout his career. Part of that is because the Pats are really good, but part of it is because it's hard for visiting teams to play well in Gillette. That's clear when you look at the road/home splits for QBs in games against the Pats, and you see that they generally turn the ball over more in Gillette than they do at home. These splits hold up for pretty much every QB in the NFL over the last 15 years. Luck has never faced the Pats away from Gillette, so he doesn't have these splits yet.

 

I agree that the Pats secondary is better. So is Luck (despite his slightly higher INT % this year). So are his receivers (particularly compared to last year's game). So is the playcalling (for the most part). So is the offensive line. 

 

Again, this game is going to be different. I don't think that Belichick just has some magical influence over Luck that will force him to turn the ball over against the Pats. I think Luck's improvement, along with not being in Gillette, should mean better ball security.

Thank you for doing the research. I was actually just asking about this season.

 

You can chalk Luck's picks up vs the Pats to being away but the fact that he has thrown the most picks of his career vs the Pats suggests that Bill and his personnel are the main reason not the venue.

 

I agree that this is also a better Colts O. Should be a great match up. I have no idea how Bill will play it. Probably lots of different looks and match ups like he did vs Denver to keep Luck guessing.

[jvan1973]

That's not how Vegas does point spreads.

i unfriend you

[amfootball]

 

That's not how Vegas does point spreads.

That is how it was explained to me when I was in Vegas. I am talking about the opening line. Not how they adjust it once the betting begins.

[jvan1973]

That is how it was explained to me when I was in Vegas. I am talking about the opening line. Not how they adjust it once the betting begins.

the guy on the floor in the casino has no input on how the sports book determines the spread.

[amfootball]

the guy on the floor in the casino has no input on how the sports book determines the spread.

There are a ton of factors that go into it. One of which is home field. That is an automatic 3 points for the home team most games. That is the average is how it was explained to me.

[Atlas Shrugged NFL]

What was the weather during last year's AFCCG ?.

 

Much warmer than the Super Bowl was.

[OffensivelyPC]

You are missing the point. It is 3 points on top of who you think the better team is. So for example, if Denver is playing the Titans at a neutral field they are favored by say 14 points. If Denver is playing them in Denver then they are favored by 17. Three points more than what you would think if they were at a neutral field. If the game is in TN then Denver is favored by 11. So Vegas generally gives the home team an extra 3 points for home field advantage. It does not mean the home team is only favored by 3 points no matter the opponent.

No you are missing the point. What or how a person thinks or feels that the outcome of a game will be and all the components that inform that opinion are irrelevant to what actually happens on the field. it's why there are upsets. Its why there a blowouts. It's why there are no ways to predict what happens in fantasy football. It's why no one can predict or know how a particular match up on the field will turn out. And it's certainly why no one can quantify the effect of home field advantage in points. All you are talking about are predictive values based on previous history. The odds are what they are, but it still doesn't affect what goes on between the two teams on the field...except maybe to the extent someone is throwing the game or something illegal like that.

[Superman]

That is how it was explained to me when I was in Vegas. I am talking about the opening line. Not how they adjust it once the betting begins.

 

I've heard sports bettors and bookies call the "home team -3" theory a flat out myth. That's anecdotal, but the way point spreads are determined isn't based on how Vegas feels the teams match up with each other.

 

Sports books, like those at casinos, set the line based on what they think will pull in an even number of bets on both teams. The general public believes that homefield advantage is a big deal in the NFL, so the line takes that into consideration (general public doesn't believe that the Raiders have a 3 point advantage when they are at home). But the line moves as bets are placed, in order to keep even money on both sides. Books and casinos are neutral; if even money is on both sides, they are guaranteed a profit, no matter what happens in the game. If they let money get lopsided, then the books and casinos are gambling on one team or another, just like the bettors are.

 

So the Colts have opened up at -2.5, and the general public might think that Vegas feels the two teams are basically equal, but that's not what the line represents. The line is what Vegas thinks the general public thinks, and as the bets come in, if more people are taking the Pats -- which I expect -- the spread will shrink to favor the Pats, influencing more bets on the Colts. It doesn't mean Vegas' opinion of the matchup has changed. It means they want the betting to change, to keep even money on both teams. 

[amfootball]

No you are missing the point. What or how a person thinks or feels that the outcome of a game will be and all the components that inform that opinion are irrelevant to what actually happens on the field. it's why there are upsets. Its why there a blowouts. It's why there are no ways to predict what happens in fantasy football. It's why no one can predict or know how a particular match up on the field will turn out. And it's certainly why no one can quantify the effect of home field advantage in points. All you are talking about are predictive values based on previous history. The odds are what they are, but it still doesn't affect what goes on between the two teams on the field...except maybe to the extent someone is throwing the game or something illegal like that.

I agree completely. You were asking to quantify home field advantage as we all believe there is some advantage. Vegas puts it at 3 points for the home team. There is no other quantifiable metric that I know of so I used Vegas. I just don't happen to put as much stock in home field advantage as some do on this thread. For sure it is advantage but generally speaking the team that executes the better game plan wins.

[amfootball]

I've heard sports bettors and bookies call the "home team -3" theory a flat out myth. That's anecdotal, but the way point spreads are determined isn't based on how Vegas feels the teams match up with each other.

 

Sports books, like those at casinos, set the line based on what they think will pull in an even number of bets on both teams. The general public believes that homefield advantage is a big deal in the NFL, so the line takes that into consideration (general public doesn't believe that the Raiders have a 3 point advantage when they are at home). But the line moves as bets are placed, in order to keep even money on both sides. Books and casinos are neutral; if even money is on both sides, they are guaranteed a profit, no matter what happens in the game. If they let money get lopsided, then the books and casinos are gambling on one team or another, just like the bettors are.

 

So the Colts have opened up at -2.5, and the general public might think that Vegas feels the two teams are basically equal, but that's not what the line represents. The line is what Vegas thinks the general public thinks, and as the bets come in, if more people are taking the Pats -- which I expect -- the spread will shrink to favor the Pats, influencing more bets on the Colts. It doesn't mean Vegas' opinion of the matchup has changed. It means they want the betting to change, to keep even money on both teams. 

Sure. Ton of factors go into the line and they want the juice anyways. As even steven as possible so they don't get hosed either way.

 

For sure home field is a factor in how they determine it and maybe the 3 point thing is a myth but that is what was said to me in Vegas and the explanation seems plausible but really every game is so different with so many factors just beyond who is at home.

[jvan1973]

There are a ton of factors that go into it. One of which is home field. That is an automatic 3 points for the home team most games. That is the average is how it was explained to me.

Average, yes. But some teams get more, some less. Its not the end all number fir every team like you have alluded to in many posts

[Superman]

I agree completely. You were asking to quantify home field advantage as we all believe there is some advantage. Vegas puts it at 3 points for the home team. There is no other quantifiable metric that I know of so I used Vegas. I just don't happen to put as much stock in home field advantage as some do on this thread. For sure it is advantage but generally speaking the team that executes the better game plan wins.

 

Sure. Ton of factors go into the line and they want the juice anyways. As even steven as possible so they don't get hosed either way.

 

For sure home field is a factor in how they determine it and maybe the 3 point thing is a myth but that is what was said to me in Vegas and the explanation seems plausible but really every game is so different with so many factors just beyond who is at home.

 

Okay, but what Vegas does with point spreads doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. That's about getting even money on both teams, not how the teams match up with one another. It has nothing to do with the game. They'll put Broncos vs. Raiders at Raiders -10 if they think that will get even money on both sides, even though we all know the Raiders aren't 20 points better than the Broncos. 

 

If Vegas sets the line at Pats -5 for a Pats road game, people think that means that the Pats are considered to be 8 points better than the home team. That's not true. That means Vegas thinks that's the number needed to induce equal money on both sides of the bet. The preconceived notion that the home team gets 3 points is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy; the general public thinks the home team gets 3 points, so they work that into their betting. But professional bettors know better than that, and they often place their bets late anyways, after the line has moved. 

 

But this whole "home team -3" thing has nothing to do with actual football. It's only betting. And you keep repeating it as if it has something to do with the outcome of games.

 

Edit: It's more about predicting the behavior of those placing bets than it is predicting the outcome of the game.

[Superman]

Average, yes. But some teams get more, some less. Its not the end all number fir every team like you have alluded to in many posts

 

Even that's impossible to quantify. 

[jvan1973]

Even that's impossible to quantify.

Until the season is over. Last year it was three points for the league as a whole

http://www.progspicks.com/myth.html