I’m back for the second week. Who am I? I’m the OldManWhoBets, a product of Gambling Twitter, a regular at CBS New York, a nobody from nowhere that loves combining data with sports to predict future outcomes.
In short, I’m your guy for free short-term high volatility sports investments. Perhaps you cashed with me for the TNF game?
Enough about me. Let’s dive into Week 6’s best bets.
You know what they say: Some of the best bets are the most uncomfortable.
Are we really backing the 2-3 Jags led by Mustache Minshew against perennial powerhouse the New Orleans Saints? You bet.
In a battle of the backups, both quarterbacks have performed admirably: Bridgewater is 3-0, coming off his first 300-yard game since the last time I updated my Top 8 on MySpace, and the Saints are loaded with individual talent on both sides of the ball.
The Jags, on the other hand? This is a team that looked like they were giving up in Week 2, with star cornerback Jalen Ramsey demanding a trade. Felt like the Jags of old, post-Mark Brunell, perhaps in the Chad Henne era. Lots of losses.
How are the Jags, who’ve now allowed 300 yards passing to Marcus Mariota and Joe Flacco (not elite), favored against the 4-1 Saints?
Let’s dive under the hood.
The Saints, while 4-1, do have a negative point differential, as do the Jags (-1 vs. -7, both within a possession). Efficiency ratings? A lot closer than we’d think as well. The Jags offense ranks seventh in the league in efficiency, overperforming based on preseason projections. That being said, I’m buying the hype—in Mustache Minshew we trust. Their defense? A pedestrian 25th.
Down in the Bayou, the Saints offense ranks 14th in efficiency, with their defense clocking in at 20th.
The biggest delta for me comes from that Jags offense and Saints defense. Combine that with the fact that with only 36 percent of the bets are on the Jags and the line hasn’t moved we’re playing with the sharp money in this fade-the-public spot. I’d also lean toward the over for the second week in a row at 43.5.
In Minshew we trust.
Last week they took an L, but this week the Ravens bounce back. Yes, the Ravens won last week, and no, they didn’t cover. I made the fateful decision to double down on them 2H last week, and boy what a disappointing 0-2 that was.
But that’s the point here: The Ravens squeaked by a third-string quarterback last week and got smacked by the Browns the week before. I’m buying low. Why? Starting with the line itself, I love the movement. With the Ravens getting only 44 percent of the bets, this line has moved 2.5 points from 8 to 10.5, indicating the sharps are buying in. I love that. Going deeper, I do believe in this Ravens team. Big favorites have been covering way more this season than they have historically, which also eases my nerves in backing the double-digit home favorites.
Looking at the Bengals, this is a team desperately searching for an identity, one I don’t believe they’ll find in a hostile Baltimore environment. This Bengals team is poor all around: 28th in offensive efficiency and 31st in defensive efficiency. They’re battered and bruised (literally, their wide receivers are decimated), and the offensive line has been nothing more than a sieve. Juicy.
That brings us to the Ravens. As mentioned above, the public is not backing them. NFL betting in particular seems to be an exercise in overreactions, and I for one like to pounce on those opportunities.
Lamar Jackson has had some turnover trouble these past two weeks (five interceptions, two fumbles, no turnovers in their first three games), but this Cincinnati defense is 23rd in takeaways, which is not a particularly daunting stat.
The Ravens’ offense is currently fifth in offensive efficiency, and I expect them to exploit this Bengals’ defense at home. Defensively, they’re a lackluster 24th, but should still be able to match up well against Andy Dalton and company.
I’ll have some more picks and player props closer to game time; make sure you follow me on Twitter for the most up-to-date plays. Questions, comments, concerns? Holler at me there as well.
