*** OFFICIAL 11/25/07 NFL SNF GAME THREAD (PHI @ NE) ***

[NajdorfDefense]

1) I didn't say *you* said that, I askedyou a simple question which you seemed to have ducked. I didn't say anyone said that, so stop putting words in my mouth, a constant and repeated error of yours.
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, and I don't have to make a case as the DVOA and DPAR numbers bear it out. You simply ran away from the argument when I posted them.

You reply to things nobody said, invent strawmen, and change the topic repeatedly, and ofen confuse Poster A with Poster B's comments, 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, or said 'slam dunk' although 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 was obvious 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, the Ravens, or random posters who didn't bet the game. I bolded the most pertinent parts of the post fyp.]

edit: if you don't want to answer so as not to give away your secret sauce, that's understandable.

[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?

[Thremp]

Umm... LOL at anyone who wasn't on +24.5

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm... LOL at anyone who wasn't on +24.5

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't LOL at me, I took +16.5 3/1 [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Cue-Ball 66]

Even I was on +24.5, knowing next to nothing about NFL. But just reading this post it seemed all the intelligent people thought it was a great bet, so I took it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Thanks smart people!!!

[cato-tonia]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Im just trying to understand why you experts still dont think this team is so far above everyone else its not even funny. /pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

because their defense sucks, is aging, and will get worse.

[cato-tonia]

[ QUOTE ]
Signal/noise ratio has gotten really bad in here this week.

I've got a total of 7u on the Eagles at various spreads, +22.5 and higher. Also on Eagles team total over 14.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent play

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Im just trying to understand why you experts still dont think this team is so far above everyone else its not even funny. /pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

because their defense sucks, is aging, and will get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

NE's defense sucks huh?

Good one.

[RichGangi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you getting so bent out of shape? Im just trying to understand why you experts still dont think this team is so far above everyone else its not even funny. /pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

because their defense sucks, is aging, and will get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, their defense is terrible.

Top 5 Defense
THROUGH WEEK 12

PIT (-23.7%)
NE (-15.9%)
IND (-14.1%)
BAL (-11.6%)
TEN (-11.3%)

LOLZ.

[psuasskicker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't understand your point then. He said -24.5 against the Eagles was a terrible line


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, what he effectively said was that anyone who did not bet Phi +24.5 was nothing but a "square" and a "fanboy". I don't agree with this viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't agree with viewpoint <> Other person not knowledgable.

"Hello, Pot? This is Kettel. You're black."

I'm not the sharpest sports bettor, I'm a noob at it. But even I know a stupid line when I see one.
Pats -24.5 over Eagles = stupid.
Pats -14 over Ravens = stupid.
The sharp play on both those lines was completely obvious. One of course was never available. The other was seen briefly, and I didn't see one sharp calling it a no-bet much less playing the other side of it.

And don't bother calling yourself a sharp, cause if you do, "I don't agree with this viewpoint."

[ QUOTE ]
He went on to say he had no idea how to set that line, and he was also clueless that the line has been available for hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Once again for the process-oriented-challenged:

Not knowing how I'd set the line <> don't know the line was available.

Show me exactly where I said that? You'll have an apology on your way.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I never said that. What I did say is that laying off that game does not qualify you as a "square" or a "fanboy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Your implication clearly is that laying off that game can be validated as an "acceptable play". Contention here obviously is that it is EV- to advocate "laying off" when "playing +24.5" is such an obviously EV+ play.

Why do you think laying off the game is okay unless you think +24.5 is an EV0 or worse line?

And OBTW, no one here is being ROT...most of us were pretty strongly advocating +24.5 as an easy EV+ play long before game wrap.

- C -