1. The Bengals defense created more pressures on the QB this year than the Rams vaunted pass rush did.
2. Burrow & Stafford faced a few common opponents with winning records. Burrow's TD to INT ratio in those games was 13 to 4. Stafford's was 13 to 14.
3. Nobody on the Bengals starting defense is older than 27. The key players up front for the Rams defense are all 29 or older (Floyd, Von Miller, Donald). Defensive players tends to decline after age 29, as some of the stats show for some of the famed Rams' defensive line.
4. Despite having the #1 corner in pro football, #1 wideouts have generally averaged better-than-average statistical performances against the Rams, likely due to their heavy use of zone defenses.
5. Neither team appears to have great game planning, as both their offenses and defenses slightly underperform in 1st halves this season, but both teams show above-average adjustment ability, as their 2nd halves tend to make up for any poor offensive or defensive performance in the 1st halves of games.
*Bonus: Rams & Bengals each faced about 10 teams with top-rated passers. Bengals gave up an average of 24 points per game, while the "much better" Rams defense gave up an average of 27 points per game.
*2nd Bonus: When Bengals lose, it's usually a close loss. When Rams lose, it's been by double digits.
MLB
2% REDS 50% Dbacks
2% ROYALS 50% Astros
WORLD CUP
2% USA 48% Paraguay
ALL OK at 55% or less
World Cup Group B - My Pick
1% Canada vs Bosnia and Herzegovina to draw at 27c
OR
1% Canada not to defeat Bosnia and Herzegovina at 46c
OR
Some combination of the above
I'm going to keep this super brief as my wife's parents are visiting and as they are Bosnian we will be cheering for Bosnia and Herzegovina tonight. Basically what this comes down to is how close Bosnia will be able to keep the game against a Canada team that is technically very strong but can struggle to convert possession dominance into goals. We have seen this over quite a few friendlies where they just haven't quite had that cutting edge to put teams away. They face a Bosnian team that qualified via the European playoffs and beat both Wales and Italy on penalties.
Bosnia have been doing better under Sergej Barbarez who took an underperforming team with some ego issues and built a team with a tough defence but with young attacking talent coming through. What is notable is they don't panic when they go behind. They...
First, four factors dictate whether there is major turnover in the Senate in a midterm election independent of the favorability of the Senate map (due to only one-third of seats being up in any given midterm). Often, as was the case in both 2018 and 2022, is that incumbents are not destined to lose seats, outside of realigning elections in unfavorable maps. This cycle's map favors the GOP, which is why the prediction markets and most forecasters expect a GOP majority in the 2027 Senate. The four factors that prove dangerous to the incumbent party are: first, a recession or cost of living crisis; second, a war; third, a major scandal; and fourth, a sense of betrayal in the voter group that backed the incumbent amongst some portion of their prior electoral coalition. Five midterms feature some combingation of those factors in some significant degree: 1930, 1946, 1958, 1974 and 2006.
Without those factors present in multiple forms, the incumbent party can expect to hold on to seats in states it previously won outside the national margin. When those factors are present, the landscape shifts dramatically. Examining those White House incumbent seats that showed a state-wide election decided by single digits in the prior decade produces the following probabilities: the incumbent White House party lost at least 67% of its incumbent held seats, as much as 85% of its incumbent held seats, and an average of 75% of its incumbent hold seats, rarely upsetting the opposition party in any seat and often losing a surprise or two in seats considered completely safe.