1229 replies to this topic

[wsox8]

BigDMcGee, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

Orlando Pace was a terrible pick up. He cost the bears the game. He's a shell of his former greatness.

yep, Bears didn't want to win tonight

[BigDMcGee]

wsox8, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

yep, Bears didn't want to win tonight

sorry to tee off on you here, but saying a team doesn't want to win is absurd. They just made too many mistakes and too many bad turnovers. I guarantee everyone on the field wanted to win, really really badly.

[bigkg]

vomit

[wsox8]

BigDMcGee, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:36 PM, said:

sorry to tee off on you here, but saying a team doesn't want to win is absurd. They just made too many mistakes and too many bad turnovers. I guarantee everyone on the field wanted to win, really really badly.

I didn't mean that literally. You got my point. They didn't look good and from a viewer's standpoint it looked like they gave the game away so many different times that they didn't want to win. (I'm sure you already knew that)

[BigDMcGee]

wsox8, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

I didn't mean that literally. You got my point. They didn't look good and from a viewer's standpoint it looked like they gave the game away so many different times that they didn't want to win. (I'm sure you already knew that)

yeah... I have just gotten sensitive to sports cliches from listening to the dan lebatard show. I'm also extremely tilted about watching that horse shit game.

[wsox8]

BigDMcGee, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 10:41 PM, said:

yeah... I have just gotten sensitive to sports cliches from listening to the dan lebatard show. I'm also extremely tilted about watching that horse shit game.

I know what you mean. I would rather just type the shortened version and say that they didn't want to win (assuming that everyone knows what I mean). I might be stupid but I know they're trying.

[TRB05]

dEv~, on Sunday, October 18th, 2009, 6:45 PM, said:

I don't know if it's been talked about on here but I just wanted to say that the NFL Redzone Channel = the nutz.

Love it.

[fryer98]

Random, but obviously mostly Steelers based...There are currently seven QBs with an 100+ rating. Brady is knocking on the door at 99. In 2004, four QBs ended the year with an 100+ rating, the most I could find in any year.Ben Roethlisberger is leading the NFL in passing yards. Who ever thought they'd see this day, since he's known as a game manager QB?Hines Ward is leading the NFL in catches and receiving yards. Isn't he supposed to be on the downside of his career?Orton vs. Cutler. Ortan has 35 more yards. Three less TDs, but six less INTs. Orton has a better rating 97.4 vs. 86.9

[MaxStPolish]

Well I think my play of the year is here. I usually don't stray from my 1 unit betting increment. I did put a 2 unit play down with success.....but this is my first, and probably only time this year making a 3 unit play. someone explain this to me further if you can. New York Jets (-6) @ Oakland. I was amazed to get this at 6, as I felt even 7 was a solid play. To my surprise the line did in fact open at -7, but has been pounded hard early on the oakland side of the spectrum, driving it all the way down to 6 here on monday.I'll get into details later, but does anyone not find this line just fantastic for NYJ??

[JoeyJoJo]

Excerpt from Chuck Klosterman's latest book Eating the Dinosaur on ESPN.comThere's a ton of good stuff in there.

[DrawingDeadInDM]

I have no idea who the second best team in the Big 12 is.

[CaneBrain]

DrawingDeadInDM, on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 9:46 AM, said:

I have no idea who the second best team in the Big 12 is.

Oklahoma when healthy (hell they might be the best when healthy.....has Texas been all that impressive this year? Not really.)Right now, I would go with Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It's a down year for the Big 12. Heck, it's a bit of a down year for college football as a whole. The only truly impressive team so far is Alabama and they go through long stretches where McElroy (their QB) looks AWFUL. I think there will be a lot more upsets down the stretch.

[cuddlemonkey]

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

Oklahoma when healthy (hell they might be the best when healthy.....has Texas been all that impressive this year? Not really.)Right now, I would go with Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. It's a down year for the Big 12. Heck, it's a bit of a down year for college football as a whole. The only truly impressive team so far is Alabama and they go through long stretches where McElroy (their QB) looks AWFUL. I think there will be a lot more upsets down the stretch.

Which are offset by stretches where Mark Ingram looks like the Heisman frontrunner.I fully expect McElroy to to turn it around, though. He seems to have a good grasp of where he's making his mistakes.

[dEv~]

I'm all for the Lambeau Leap, but Grandma's gotta control herself...http://www.footballg...tos/grandma.php

[CaneBrain]

MaxStPolish, on Monday, October 19th, 2009, 2:15 PM, said:

Well I think my play of the year is here. I usually don't stray from my 1 unit betting increment. I did put a 2 unit play down with success.....but this is my first, and probably only time this year making a 3 unit play. someone explain this to me further if you can. New York Jets (-6) @ Oakland. I was amazed to get this at 6, as I felt even 7 was a solid play. To my surprise the line did in fact open at -7, but has been pounded hard early on the oakland side of the spectrum, driving it all the way down to 6 here on monday.I'll get into details later, but does anyone not find this line just fantastic for NYJ??

Well Oakland plays the pass well and lately Mark Sanchez looks spotty at best. So it is unlikely the Jets are going to get a lot done through the air in Oakland. The Jets also have a bad bad history in Oakland I believe. And Oakland looked better against Philly last week. Bottom line: Vegas usually knows more than you. So dont assume you are finding some gem they screwed up on.That being said....if I was going to bet on that game I would probably take the Jets and give up 6. Good luck.

[MaxStPolish]

CaneBrain, on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009, 3:02 PM, said:

Well Oakland plays the pass well and lately Mark Sanchez looks spotty at best. So it is unlikely the Jets are going to get a lot done through the air in Oakland. The Jets also have a bad bad history in Oakland I believe. And Oakland looked better against Philly last week. Bottom line: Vegas usually knows more than you. So dont assume you are finding some gem they screwed up on.That being said....if I was going to bet on that game I would probably take the Jets and give up 6. Good luck.

Totally agree with all of the above. But "oakland looking better" was still woeful. Their D looking solid is the only worrysome part....but on O they scored a TD on a fluke 80+ yd score to their TE. Remove that and it's another 6 point day with jamarcus tossing a few picks. You just know that Ryan and Co. are going to definitely pull Sanchez's ears way back on this one. Sticking to a stout running regimen with short patterns to open up the game. I guess the simplistic way I look at it is that it is a must win for the jets, and they are playing oakland, and the public is just totally skewed on this game based on last week's results. I feel like this game should have been 7.5-9, maybe moving down to 7 when the public hammers oakland because they won last week and the jets have looked woeful. I just feel like there is real value in the jets giving less than 7 this week.Thx for the GL, this would be a very big win as I have like 33% of my roll on it

[JoeyJoJo]

CaneBrain, on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009, 1:02 PM, said:

Bottom line: Vegas usually knows more than you. So dont assume you are finding some gem they screwed up on.

I heard somewhere that last week on the Eagles-Raiders game, 83% of the action was on the Eagles. Vegas did well on that one.I think when the public is over 70% on one side you want the other side; 83% is almost unheard of.

[MaxStPolish]

MaxStPolish, on Friday, October 23rd, 2009, 6:59 AM, said:

Totally agree with all of the above. But "oakland looking better" was still woeful. Their D looking solid is the only worrysome part....but on O they scored a TD on a fluke 80+ yd score to their TE. Remove that and it's another 6 point day with jamarcus tossing a few picks. You just know that Ryan and Co. are going to definitely pull Sanchez's ears way back on this one. Sticking to a stout running regimen with short patterns to open up the game. I guess the simplistic way I look at it is that it is a must win for the jets, and they are playing oakland, and the public is just totally skewed on this game based on last week's results. I feel like this game should have been 7.5-9, maybe moving down to 7 when the public hammers oakland because they won last week and the jets have looked woeful. I just feel like there is real value in the jets giving less than 7 this week.Thx for the GL, this would be a very big win as I have like 33% of my roll on it

38-0 constitutes a baller play of the year. Happy camper, actually 3-0 today. Bears were quite a pot of bullocks, but whatevs.

[donk4life]

It's pretty pathetic that a team like K-State has a legitimate chance of winning the Big 12 North. I go to K-State and still think it's pathetic, our quarterback is god awful.

[Jadaki]

donk4life, on Monday, October 26th, 2009, 2:24 PM, said:

It's pretty pathetic that a team like K-State has a legitimate chance of winning the Big 12 North. I go to K-State and still think it's pathetic, our quarterback is god awful.

Big 12 North StandingsCONF OVERALLKansas State 3-1 5-3Iowa State 2-2 5-3Kansas 1-2 5-2Nebraska 1-2 4-3Colorado 1-2 2-5Missouri 0-3 4-3These standings are hilarious.