Brought to you by - Total Football Advisors, LLC
Savage: I think we call kind of understand that Nick Mullens is "just a guy." He was fortunate enough to get a spot start against the most pathetic team in the league and took advantage of the situation. It seems obvious to want to fade him in his 2nd start (maybe a little too obvious) and it seems reasonable to downgrade the 49ers offense with a 3rd stringer at QB for the 2nd straight game. But my question would be, do you want to fade Nick Mullens bad enough that you're willing to bet on the Giants? And, how much can you really downgrade the 49ers offense when they were rolling with CJ Beathard to begin with?
Katz: It's hard to look at this game and not think that 3.5 points is a lot. The 49ers being favored with Nick Mullens at QB just doesn't make sense. I know Eli is terrible, but the Giants at least have elite playmakers in Beckham and Barkley. What exactly do the 49ers have? We have two bad teams and one of them has better players. I'll take the points.
RC: From an evaluator standpoint, I would say C.J. Beathard is a C-/D+ QB talent. Useful backup/spot starter. Nick Mullens is more of a D/F...smaller physically, bad arm when forced to throw without feet set. Like with Sam Darnold...eventually the weak have their day of reckoning -- and it seems to be their second start. Darnold was hailed after his first start and then collapsed. Nathan Peterman went 7-10 with 1 TD/0 INT in mop up duty the week before they shoved him in as a starter against LAC in 2017 for the 5 INTs in a half nightmare. Brock Osweiler beat the Bears his first emergency start this season -- the best defense in the NFL and he planted 3 TDs + 380 yards passing on them in a win. He's fallen apart since.
Mullens is ripe to fall to earth. Likely a nifty pre-planned first series, maybe a TD right away, and then the Giants will bring it -- you're getting a pick six ion this game with NYG, I can feel it.
Rabbitt: I am usually strongly against any Giants bet due to just public perception being so much higher than reality on them. In this case though, I can't help but feel the opposite. Where exactly is SF better than the Giants? Offensive line... and?
Skol: I need the Giants to get my B5 to 2-2-1...the reason I included them is Nick Mullens. So much of his success vs the Raiders seemed to be near disaster turned awesome play. I decided the moment my Raiders bet went down the drain that the team got a one week bump from the 3rd strong QB and I would fade them this week. I like that Odell said they want to run the table...the Giants schedule is amazing the next month or so compared to the gauntlet they had to face to begin the season. Eli has been told to perform or else...the Giants certainly can lose this game but I’m rolling with Big Blue to show up and get this meaningless win!
Savage: To answer Rabbitt's question, I think the 49ers have the better pass rush, too. The Giants have very quietly been terrible rushing the passer, only 10 sacks all year. It creates a unique situation for Mullens, getting to play the worst pass rush in the league in his first start and then the (statistically) 2nd worst pass rush in his 2nd start. I don't think we'll see his "day of reckoning" if the Giants can't get any pressure.
Rabbitt: Interesting. They have been a very quiet terrible pass rush, because thats the first I have heard of them being that tragically bad. I don't want to live in a world where Nick Mullens is 2-0.