To me, Philbin would do much much better with a more Veteran Roster, meaning a deeper roster with long time professionals, rather than odd mix of a Vet starter (sort of) and 2nd and 1st yr players all over the place. His style is a sort of anal retentive form of Tony Dungy
Could he handle veterans with their opinions? I think Philbin would be better with a team in the 60s before athletes had huge egos and personalities.
If this team can block and run the football there's a potential for 10+ wins. If this team can't, it's going to be ugly. Like Matt Moore because Tannehill is broken bad. And then it just becomes Kill It With Fire time. It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It's about being realistic. If the above things aren't fixed, forget it. And the talking behind people's back and dissension will start very quickly when passes aren't hitting WR's in stride for homerun touchdowns.
These were almost my exact thoughts in another thread. Only I think the floor is 7 wins and the ceiling is 11. The one thing I disagree with, is this division being easy. New England still has key pieces in place and that WR core is one year more mature/seasoned. Gronk should be back. Barring another fluke injury, that makes the Pats division winners, IMO. And I think the Jets have improved. I doubt Vick makes it through the year, so their QB situation is just as unstable as it ever was, IMO. Outside of that, they're better. Not to mention a very piss poor bills team beat us twice last year and isn't as bad as some think, IMO. I think we should go 4-2 in the division, but I could see 3-3. IMO the three biggest factors that will contribute to a winning season/playoffs are... 1. Lazor: What is he bringing to Miami? While I have no doubts he learned a thing or two from Chip Kelly, I think Dolphins fans are too optimistic that he's bringing the Philadelphia offense to Miami. I'm excited about his potential nevertheless. 2. Ju'Wuan James and Billy Turner: I'm less worried about James than I am Turner. I've never felt comfortable banking on rookies to solve a professional teams problems. Their long term future is bright. Are they good enough right now, is the question? I obviously hope yes, but we'll see. 3. The Secondary: I don't like this secondary. It has the potential to be outright terrible and cost us games. In fact, they could rival being as bad as the offensive line was for us last season. Grimes doesn't worry me at all. I think he'll be fine. Jones clearly has the ability. The rest? They all make me uncomfortable. Hopefully Will Davis continues his growth from camp last year and actually brings something to the table. Taylor wanting to quit last year has me majorly concerned. Does he have the heart for this job?. And Finnegan worries me because he absolutely sucks. Delmas isn't likely to finish 16 games either, IMO. I think we took a major step backwards.
I am constantly amazed that so many individuals on here look at the present roster and seem to think the Dolphins have enough upgrades from last year to propel them into a playoff team this year. I just don't see it, at this time. To me, Alberts is an upgrade and possibly Moreno, if the OL can actually run block this coming season. All the other players signed in free agency and drafted remain huge question marks in regards to whether or not they can come in and upgrade the positions they are expected to fill. It seems most people think that some of the rookies can come in and make an instant impact. This goes totally against what we have seen from Philbin and this coaching staff over the past two seasons. In fact the only rookie who has had any impact was Tannehill and he was merely very average or below in his rookie season. Perhaps the free agents signed, other than Alberts and Moreno will be better than the players they replaced and two or three of the rookies will actually come in and make an instant impact. Because if none of these players are able to produce immediately, the chances are that the Dolphins in 2014 will be much like the Dolphins the past two years and an 8-8 record will probably be the best anyone should hope from this team in 2014.
There was an issue raised by VManis before that I tried to argue against myself but really I should just leave the floor to Awsi Dooger from FH who is literally about as good a betting and bookmaking insider as you're likely to ever find on message boards. Someone raised pretty much the exact point that VManis raised about how the bookmakers aren't really predicting what the teams will do but rather trying to peg the point at which they'll get 50% of the money on the over and 50% of the money on the under. This was Awsi's reply:
I go on that site occasionally for the sole purpose of searching/reading the posts from that user. I highly recommend this practice; it's worth the username or whatever. The stuff is quite good.
One thing I will add to what Awsi said is that most books I've dealt with will limit how much you can bet into opening lines. A few years back I had a pretty solid model for NCAA first half totals at the start of the season. Most books wouldn't take my action, and the ones that would were limiting to me to $200 wagers. Mind you, I'm speaking on online books. Actual casinos in Vegas are going to be a little easier to get action with. But generally speaking, online sportsbooks will leverage the rules to their advantage at every opportunity. Another thing to keep in mind is that sportsbooks have different ways of generating revenue. Theres a model where they can evenly split action and take the vig. The success of this model rests on the volume they're getting. 10% juice on $0 is $0. Books can use lines and line movement to attract more action - they just need to make sure their exposure is limited. The most important thing though is identifying the difference between the opening line and the closing line. If you bet strictly into closing lines, you will lose money gambling. I 100% guarantee it. Closing lines are the absolute best predictor of outcome. Opening lines are much worse at predicting outcome. If you can beat the closing line, you are expected to win money. It is really that simple. You can calculate your expected profit/loss before the game even starts, using only the closing line and the line you bet into.
I'm adding one to this: Houston Texans - Under 7.5 (-145) Detroit Lions - Over 8.0 (-150) New York Giants - Over 7.5 (-135) Denver Broncos - Over 11.0 (-140) Dallas Cowboys - Under 8.0 (-110) Jacksonville Jaguars - Over 4.5 (-150) Atlanta Falcons - Under 8.0 (+110) Carolina Panthers - Over 8.0 (-130) Cincinnati Bengals - Under 9.0 (+115) Baltimore Ravens - Over 8.5 (-130) Buffalo Bills - Over 6.5 (-130) Miami Dolphins - Under 8.0 (-130) Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Over 7.0 (-120) Last two years I made a killing on a call with the Arizona Cardinals. Vegas had the Cards over/under something like 6.5 in 2012 and I looked up and down that roster and said no way. They would have to win 7 games for me to lose that one and I just didn't see it happening. Even when they started out 4-0 with a win against Miami, I was never nervous about it. I looked at the way they were playing, looked at the schedule and thought I'd be surprised if they won 2 more games. They didn't. They went 5-11. The following year though Vegas overreacted to this and set their over/under at 5.5 wins. I looked at what the GM with Jason Licht's help had done to their roster in the off season and it was exactly like what you see in Tampa right now, an overhaul. Across the board they were better. In addition they were getting a new head coach, which typically is good for a boost of 1 or 2 more victories. If that wasn't good enough for 1 more win than they had in 2012 then I'll be damned...cuz all I needed to win was them getting from 5-11 to 6-10. They went 10-6. This year I see virtually the same experience taking shape with respect to the Detroit Lions. They were 4-12 in 2012 and I looked at their line at 8.0 in 2013 and I said no way. Up and down the roster, they had not necessarily made immediately impacting improvements. I didn't necessarily see great latent improvements in store, either. I thought this would clearly be an improving team and they wouldn't be 4-12 again, there would be a bounceback of some sort, but they would need to win 9 games for me to lose on that. To go from 4-12 to 9-7 with the same embattled head coach and virtually the same roster but with a few minor changes including some rookies? Just didn't seem likely. They went 7-9 and I won that one. But now I look across the roster and I'm floored with what they have. They may not have made enough immediately impactful additions to get them to 9 wins in 2013 but they did make ones that got the gears turning. In fact between the impacts of lower level draft picks like Larry Warford, LaAdrian Waddle, Devin Taylor and Joseph Fauria, they damn near beat the odds and made enough immediate impact to make me look bad. Those guys along with other newer players like Ezekiel Ansah, Reggie Bush, Joique Bell, Rashean Mathis and Glover Quin provide a nice foundation for improvement when you combine them with established players like Matt Stafford, Riley Reiff, Brandon Pettigrew, Nick Fairley, Stephen Tulloch, DeAndre Levy and Chris Houston. Then you have two true superstars in Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh. With that player setup by itself, combined with the backdrop of a new head coach which as I said has a tendency to statistically produce 1 to 2 more victories in the immediate future, those things would be good enough to make me bullish on the over. But you add onto that the fresh additions they've made THIS year in Golden Tate, Eric Ebron and Kyle Van Noy...that's where this pick gets its nitro booster. You even have other guys I like for potential x-factors that could make in impact especially in the case of injury like Ryan Broyles, Cornelius Lucas, Caraun Reid, C.J. Mosley (the DT) and Darius Slay. They've done an excellent job of roster building there in recent years (possible Brian Xanders influence?) and I would be utterly shocked if they produced the same 7-9 result in 2014 that they did in 2013. I would make the over 8.0 a high conviction call for the Detroit Lions. They could even be a sleeper Super Bowl pick.
Not me. I have rarely picked them for that. I think this is the first year in a while that I've been bullish on them. I can't help what people mistakenly did in the past for all the wrong reasons. In fact I took advantage of those people in 2013. But I'm pretty confident all the right reasons are there now.
Again, there is no set in stone formula for Vegas. Other factors that are taken into a great deal of consideration is team popularity. Teams like the Pats, Giants, and 49ers will normally have inflated totals due to Vegas knowing they will get a high volume of bets on them. They also set deceiving totals, maybe this only factors in at a half a game either way...but it's there.
Detroit is fools gold. They've had a big team offense for years now. Adding Ebron was dumb. How much better can that offense get? How many touches are available? Either way, Stafford is an average QB with a big arm and any team who plays them is going to make it rain on that secondary.
I'm not sure there's enough action on the Dolphins to influence officiating, but some of these bad calls carry a heavy weight with only a 16 game season so it makes me wonder. I quit gambling after I saw I was winning 2/3 of my bets and ending up with only a 10-20% gain on the year. The juice is expense and if there is a lot of action on Detroit over 8 paying -150, then I really wonder when Vegas rigs the refs.
I'm glad to hear skepticism about Detroit...just like I was happy to hear skepticism about the Cardinals over and Detroit under last year. Means I'll get a good price.
Agreed. Both Green bay and Chicago are superior teams. Both have better QB's (when healthy) and better overall weapons. And just look at Detroit's schedule. Not only do they have to contend in the NFC North, but they have to play the NFC South. Looking at their schedule, I think it's more likely they win 7 or less than 9 or more.
I don't really see why Chicago is assumed to be a better team than Detroit. Chicago started out hot but they stumbled late just like Detroit did and just like Miami did for that matter. Chicago lost 4 of their last 6 games, both of their last 2 games as they were trying to get into the playoffs. And are we really going to start touting Jay Cutler as being superior to Matt Stafford? That one I don't understand. I get being bullish on Chicago's combination of Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery. But going up and down that roster from offense to defense I don't necessarily see a better roster than the Lions have. I mean people act like Stafford has had all these weapons in Detroit. It's really not true. Their efforts to surround Calvin Johnson with legitimate threats to take the pressure off him have met mostly with utter failure. Brandon Pettigrew is not a great receiving weapon as a tight end. Kris Durham took 970 snaps at wide receiver last year. That bears repeating. KRIS DURHAM. Oh and the number three was Nate Burleson. NATE BURLESON. Yes they got themselves a nice weapon in Joe Fauria as a UDFA but the coaches only put him on the field for 300 snaps because he was just a rookie UDFA. Even though Reggie Bush is a nice receiving weapon, he's still just a tailback. Of course all Stafford could do was get the ball to Calvin Johnson. He was the only guy worth getting the ball to. But now that's changed. Golden Tate was an extraordinarily efficient receiver in Seattle whose pure production numbers were hindered by the lack of overall pass attempts and Russell Wilson's tendency to spread the football around. Make no mistake that is one hell of an addition to the receivers unit. He's a difference maker. Then you also add Eric Ebron who will function like a third receiver. Joseph Fauria is going to get a bigger role now that he proved well worth it as a rookie. Reggie Bush is still there. Ryan Broyles is getting healthier. The offensive line is pretty well built and Pettigrew is a good blocker to help them. The offense is good all around because they've got enough weapons to gain yards and between Megatron, Fauria, Tate, Bell and Bush they also have the ability to score touchdowns. A lot of offenses have one without the other but they have both now. I'll take Stafford, Megatron, Tate, Ebron, Fauria, Bush, Bell and the Detroit line over Cutler, Marshall, Jeffery, Bennett, Forte and the Chicago line.
In all fairness, they lost their final two games to two superior teams (Greenbay and Philly) than Miami. But I see your point about overrating Chicago in general. Fair enough. Both have similar issues, and Cutler can't stay healthy whatsoever. Suggesting he's better isn't really a legitimate argument the more I think about it. I'll retract that one. As for Stafford himself, it comes down to his inability to be consistent against good teams. And a lot of that has to do with his turnovers. 17 picks last season and 12 fumbles. Despite only getting sacked 23 times. Even Tannehill didn't hit double digit fumbles with 58 sacks and far more rushing attempts. Only in 2011 (Stafford basically has 3 years at QB) did he have a strong TD/turnover differential. In 2012 and 2013 it was either slightly below or slightly above 1-1. I don't have the numbers in front of me (I'll try and find the link) but outside of passes intended for Calvin Johnson, Stafford has truly been average to below average. And I get that he hasn't had a ton of help with his other guys, as the dropoff of talent from Calvin on down is real, but it's really not enough to justify his bad play, IMO. That's on his mechanics or lack thereof. Like others have said, I don't trust Stafford. As far as Detroit's new playmakers are concerned, they have absolutely upgraded (How I wish we would of drafted Fauria in the 7th instead of Sims in the 4th). They have a better offense than in 2013. Even better than 2011, when Stafford went off for 5,000+ yards and 40 TD's. They went 10-6 that year too, putting them over the magic number of 8 wins. But they also had a cake schedule, which isn't true this year. Good luck with the bets though. Hope it works out for you.
I think bringing up 2011 is a significant point. He had 5055 passing yards that year and 41 TDs. And if you look at the surrounding cast it was still just Calvin Johnson and a bunch of nobodies with perhaps the exception of Tony Scheffler. Other than Scheffler that was still Nate Burleson, Titus Young, Brandon Pettigrew, Maurice Morris, Kevin Smith, etc...Jahvid Best only played like 300 snaps. The cast surrounding Calvin Johnson now is just vastly superior. You go from Nate Burleson, Tony Scheffler, Titus Young, Maurice Morris and Jahvid Best to Golden Tate, Eric Ebron, Joseph Fauria, Reggie Bush and Joique Bell. They've also added Joe Lombardi who was the QB Coach in New Orleans for the last five years. I don't know if Lombardi is any good or not but I know he brings a pretty wide open offense that will fit the multitude of weapons the front office has successfully put in place. He's already said he will be using Eric Ebron similarly to how they used Jimmy Graham. And he's been in New Orleans when Reggie Bush was there too so he knows how to use him.
