***Week 7 Discussion***

[Horfin]

Minnesota is not good enough to win 2 back to back road games. Dallas is not bad enough to lose 2 back to back home games. So Dallas is more likely to win...Which takes you back to the team that covers wins, but the line is 10. Maybe a no play.


Horfin

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

The Cincy/NYJ & Dal/Min games are :puke: to me.....not even giving them a second look. I mean how can you be confident on a play backing either the Bungals or Jets....just ugly. Walk past, and find another gem on the card, IMO...

[cavorca12]

I somewhat agree with you about Min/Dallas. At home after rough loss, the best situation for bounce back, but last week wasn't just a regular game to come back from. That said, I would think Dallas' D matches up much much better v Min than NE. Roy Williams can actually make plays, and Dallas did an ok job stuffing Morris when he was in. Ultimately, Dallas' mindset is probably too much of a wildcard and makes me hesitant to give 9.5, but you do have Min in prime position for a letdown on the road after a huge home win. I just am not sure if Dallas will come with their A game.

As for Pitt v Denver, 3.5 blows my mind just looking at the stats for this game. Denver has given up a TON of rushing yards. Pitt runs the ball well, however, it is definitely worth noting the home/road splits for Willie Parker. Pitt has had 2 road games this season, and he was good in the first but didn't do anything in their last road game. Checking back to 2006, Parker avg. 119 at home against 68 on the road. I guess those splits, combined with Denver coming off the bye and badly needing a win, is the reasoning on the line. Still, Pitts playing some good football, and do you think this might be a case of overthinking about the past instead of going with the better team right now..

Just wanted to respond to those and hopefully give some helpful info. I do have a question myself though. All the sports shows have pounded how great NE is into our brains the entire week to the point you're sick of hearing it and maybe think they're over exaggerating how good they are. That's how I've been to some extent at least. Still, they are 6-0 SU and ATS, and haven't shown any letdown whatsoever. If not for them coming off a big game and historically playing very poorly against Miami, I don't see how I could resist going harder than usual on them at -16.5. This isn't the same Miami, and not really the same NE. My question to yall is at what point do you simply play NE every game, with the thinking being that they cover anything up to 17 against most teams more than 60% of the time (or the 52% needed to turn a profit)? It seems like books are getting even money on them at that spread, so should you run with it? I've been thinking about this a couple of days, probably too much and have began going in circles, and would love to hear some thoughts. I know there are some knowledgable guys here, who have been doing this much longer than myself, and maybe have some insight. Oh, and I am by no means a NE fan (unfortunately, a Saints fan.....), strictly interested in the handicapping aspect. Geez, for those who read this book, I'm sorry this is so long. Didn't have any idea...ugh.

[Shamrock]

irregardless

One entry found.

irregardless



Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless
instead

-He must write in edited prose!!!

Sham.......:laughing:

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

Looks like Leftwich for ATL & Edwards for Buffalo...

[Horfin]

Cav,

Welcome,

I don't have many thoughts....But I'd never blindly play a team until it lost such as NE. The Media gets people hyped. NE is really good. There are three things that you should really consider about this game:

1. 7 - Seven is a important number in the NFL. It is very difficult to go 0-7 and even more difficult to go 7-0 in the NFL. This game matches this up. I would guess (could be wrong) that only 8% of the teams over the past 40 years have started 7-0. I would also guess that less than 10% of the teams over the past 40 years have started 0-7.

2. This is a back to back road game for New England. I have always said this: Great teams can go 2-0 on the road, Good Teams can go 2-0 or 1-1 and Bad teams usually go 0-2 on the road in back to back road games. NE is clearly a great team, but back to back road games are tough and covering 17 points is tougher.

3. This could be a let down week for NE, not enough to lose, but enough to not cover. Coming of the big hype game of Dallas now playing a ****ty team with a back up qb with a new coach and blah blah blah.

Horfin

[Shamrock]

I feel like Miami always gives NE trouble too. At least recently. Anyone have any ATS numbers between these two?

[bookiekilla]

Just an FYI on the Falcons / Saints game this weekend. Leftwich has been named the starter for the Falcons...not sure how much thats going to help the Falcons, but the offense can't look any worse than it did monday night. Now I wish they would come out and say that Norwood is going to take Dunn's starting job...now THAT would make a huge difference IMO......I don't know what to think of this line...it's at 9 right now.....so the saintsa are all of a sudden good enough to be a 9 point fav against a division rival? Not saying the falcons are going to win this game or anything, but if this thing gets to 10, I might just have to be on the falcons once again this week...who knows...maybe a QB change can spark this offense.......who the fck am i kidding...:bang: falcons are probably gonna get their ass kicked...going to look more into this game as the week goes on.

[DevilsAdvokt]

irregardless

One entry found.

irregardless



Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless
instead

-He must write in edited prose!!!

Sham.......:laughing:

ur about as queer as a $3 bill

[Shamrock]

just bustin' balls..............

[DevilsAdvokt]

falcons vs saints


ESPN - Struggling Falcons insert Leftwich as starting QB - NFL

[Underdog88]

Just an FYI on the Falcons / Saints game this weekend. Leftwich has been named the starter for the Falcons...not sure how much thats going to help the Falcons, but the offense can't look any worse than it did monday night. Now I wish they would come out and say that Norwood is going to take Dunn's starting job...now THAT would make a huge difference IMO......I don't know what to think of this line...it's at 9 right now.....so the saintsa are all of a sudden good enough to be a 9 point fav against a division rival?

I'm totally with you on Norwood. Guy breaks off a 67 yard td run & you hand the ball off to him 5 more times? Maybe it's just because he's on my fantasy team LoL.


Right off the bat there's something wrong with the Saints laying 9 pts when they are coming off their first win as a dog. Are they all of a sudden right back on track? Hasselbeck still threw for 362 against them, & Seattle still averaged 4.4 ypc. I'm starting to look at the over 42, as I think both teams will be able to move the ball....

[bookiekilla]

I'm totally with you on Norwood. Guy breaks off a 67 yard td run & you hand the ball off to him 5 more times? Maybe it's just because he's on my fantasy team LoL.


Right off the bat there's something wrong with the Saints laying 9 pts when they are coming off their first win as a dog. Are they all of a sudden right back on track? Hasselbeck still threw for 362 against them, & Seattle still averaged 4.4 ypc. I'm starting to look at the over 42, as I think both teams will be able to move the ball....

Yeah Udogg...here locally, nobody can figure out why the fck norwood is not getting any more touches in this offense....get him the ball in space and get the hell out of the way...he's so damn explosive. He should be touching the ball around 15 times a game minimum on offense...runs, screens, etc...he's the only playmaker we got on offense. Well, the coaching staff (once again) has said, like they do every week, that they will try and find ways to get norwood more involved in the offense. I really don't want to back the falcons after last week's awful showing, but not sure if I can lay off gettting almost double digits from a 1 win team...the one thing the falcons are not good against is a bruising rb and if Duece was in this game, I could see this line...but not with Bush..one thing the falcons do have on D is speed with Abraham and Anderson on the ends, along with boley and williams at the OLB positions...I don't know..still figuring it out..

[Horfin]

Atl is probably the smart play esp if it hits 10

[Q-Unit]

Buffalo

and Dolphins :thumbs:

Ravens playing NFC West lately and beating up on them, thats like playing my sister. easy. LMAO I can joke cuz I dont have a sister.

Buffalo team off of epic collapse but I still like how gritty they are, and announcing JP Losman isnt starting should only be a plus.

Dolphins, no reason other than I'm 1-4 betting on any pats games this year.

the 1 win was when i took them LOL. they gotta lose sometimes the damn muthereffers!