[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I didn't say *you* said that, I asked you a simple question which you seemed to have ducked.
If laying 24.5-26 with NWE isn't a square bet, what is?

2) Would they miss McNabb? I stated that the line would be 2-4pts worse without McNabb, iirc. They clearly missed him with all the points AJ gave away both early and late, and the easy missed TD bomb to Curtis. Ugly.

3) McNabb is a great QB when healthy, I don't have to make a case. The DVOA and DPAR numbers bear it out. You simply ran away from the argument when I posted them, and resort to your 'because I said so'-type "argument."
When injured, he is no better than average. Obvs.

You love to reply to things nobody said, invent strawmen, and change the topic repeatedly, rather than answer straightforward questions.
I didn't mention laying off the game once in my last post as either good or bad, but you infer it, I never said 'slam dunk' althoug you imply it. I specifically asked if betting NWE -24.5 was square, given the merits of PHL.

My opinion of the line - a RECORD high *ever* in NFL history at 24.5 - was value for the dog is not based on the outcome of the game. It's based on thousands of games in the past 40 years of NFL history. Others pointed out the same thing as clear evidence that -24.5 was the square side. And the BSPs came out of the woodwork to support that assertion. The books had obviously shaded the line given NWE's ATS record. All of this way, *way* before kickoff last night.

Pls define a 'square' NFL bet for me [and you've told me directly you are capable of identifying such bets], and if NWE wasn't a square bet, why not?

[feel free to answer without irrelevant mentions of fanbois, Jeff Garcia, or random posters who didn't bet the game. I bolded the most pertinent parts of the post fyp.]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just don't understand why you are asking me random questions which are not relevant to the discussion.

I never said Phi +24.5 was a bad bet. Why are you asking me about this? Again, what I did say was that it is inappropriate to call someone a square just because they were laying off the game. I never said that you are the one who did this, which is not surprising because you were not involved in the discussion. As for me personally, I did believe Phi +24.5 was a good bet. That doesn't mean that I believe that anyone who sees no value on either side is definitely a square. That kind of talk is foolish, although it seems to be considered normal here on 2+2.

I never ran away from an argument. I had already made my case. You simply can not look at pure stats for QBs, because you have to take into account what kind of offensive line they play behind (this is more important than anything) and what kind of skill players they have to work with. Just spouting stats is completely meaningless. I have no interest in debating this with you. I understand that McNabb has good stats. You (hopefully) understand that the Eagles have historically performed just as well when McNabb has gotten injured.

I still don't understand why you insert yourself into a discussion, and then suddenly demand that we change the subject and hold some kind of debate with you. I have no interest in debating you. If you think that laying -24.5 is AUTOMATICALLY bad based upon NFL history, then there is nothing I can say to you to change your mind.

Even when I point out in the other thread that Pit won 42-0 as a 24.5 point favorite, you change the subject and start talking about expansion teams. Are you drunk again?