|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
mstick85 Regular user Gahanna, Ohio 151 Posts 
|
LMoon-
How was the par-tay?
"Go Browns!"
|
|||||||||
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-05 17:09, mstick85 wrote: LOL! That does take some guts,I give you props for that Lobo. 
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-05 16:53, Vandy Grift wrote: I don't think it's accurate to say the Bears "didn't come close to covering the spread." They were 5 points off the spread, and they had the ball when time expired. It's documented that most professionals had the Bears. While we do have one game as evidence of the relative strengths of the teams, one game isn't conclusive proof. That's like betting on a roll of a die...one guy takes 1-4, and the other guy takes 5 & 6. It comes up 5, so the second guy thinks he made the "right" bet. In sports where teams play several games against each other, you get a better idea of their relative strengths. I think if they play that game 10 times, the Colts probably win 6 of the ten. And the Bears cover a 7-point spread in 6 or 7 of them.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Re: Da Raidas!!!!
The Silver and Black will rise again!!!!! But probably not while Al Davis is alive.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Pete Biro 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts
|
The Raiders could have beat the Bears yesterday.
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
|||||||||
|
mstick85 Regular user Gahanna, Ohio 151 Posts
|
Ooooh, Pete. Good one! But only if George Blanda was QB'ing! Actually, Rex played a little like George yesterday. And George is only about what, seventy years old?
"Go Browns!"
|
|||||||||
|
Pete Biro 1933 - 2018 18558 Posts
|
Magician/collector/author Rober Albo, is the Raider's chief medical officer and has been for years. I spoke with a player the other day and he said he couldn't understand why (I can't spell this name) Tsiapopo ? was not the QB as he did great in pre-season.
When I was a mere child the daughter of the real owner of the Raiders was my baby sitter.
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Quote:
I can't tell how strongly I disagree with these statements. Five points off of seven point spread is called getting your ass kicked. It's called not even coming close. I don't care who had the ball when the gun went off or anything like that. I guess by that logic and your dice analogy, you believe that in a game of craps a guy "almost" made his point of 6 becuase he only missed it by 1 point and rolled a 7. All I can say to that is OH,PLEASE!!! The line is established to encourage betting, do you know how much sugar the oddsmakers left on the table by setting the spread at 7? Can you imagine the betting if they had set it at 11? Don't think those guys aren't kicking themselves for setting the line where they did. Because the line they established was WAY OFF based on the final score. As far as the rest of it, the notion that "most" "professionals" backed the Bears and that fact has been "documented".... Come on now. Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck?
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
Lambertmoon Loyal user 240 Posts
|
The spread is made by the linesmaker to try and get an even split in wagered money.
If money flows too much in one direction the line is adjusted to correct that. I believe if the Bears played in a smaller market, rather than Chicago, the spread would have been at least 8. If that line would have opened at 3, 4, or 5....wow. The bookies would have taken a worse beating that the Bears. Quote:
On 2007-02-06 00:35, Pete Biro wrote: Interesting stuff Pete. You could get some key injury info. LOL. |
|||||||||
|
Lambertmoon Loyal user 240 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-05 17:10, mstick85 wrote: The party was killer. How was Magi-Fest? |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
In the 4th quarter, the Bears were within the spread AND had the ball at midfield. I don't see how it can be said that they "didn't come close" to covering the spread. While line shifts mitigate the risk to the house, the money is almost never equally split; the house ultimately has one side or the other. In this case, the books made out big, especially with late Bears money coming in due to the weather.
As for the professional handicappers, believe what you want to believe. As one example, check the "recap" section at http://www.sportsmemo.com. Of their handicappers, each of whom works indepdently, Tim Trushel, Brent Crow, Ed Cash, Erin Rynning, Jared Klein, Sonny Palermo, DC Sports, and Teddy Covers had the Bears and the points; only Rob Veno had the Colts. Obviously, Veno wasn't the only one; I know that Brandon Lang (subject of the movie "Two for the Money") had the Colts, as well. But most of them, by far, had the Bears. You can dispute that off the top of your head all you want, but if you want to take the time to research the posted picks of professional handicappers on sites that exist to keep them honest about their stats, you'll find that it's not even close. Your craps analogy actually speaks more toward your view of the situation than mine; you think it wasn't "close" because the number was fairly far from the line; I'm looking at the game as a whole. If the Colts had the ball at midfield and an 8 point lead as time expired, I would say that's not as "close" as the Bears driving and trailing by 12 (although, granted, the fact that the Colts had the game in the bag had something to do with the Bears being able to move the ball on the final drive.) Notwithstanding all of that, when one team is covering in the 4th quarter AND has the ball in good field position, I think it's fair to say that they were "close" to covering (whatever that means).
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2007-02-06 10:41, Lambertmoon wrote: To me, if I were setting the odds, I would have gone as for out as I felt comfortable, to encourage the Bears fans to bet. It's been a long time since they had a chance to bet on the Bears in the big game. Not as long as it's been for Colts fans, but Chicago is known to bring the money when their teams are involved.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Lobo,
I don't want to argue anymore about whether or not they were "close" to covering the spread. That's objective. I can see what you are saying about the Bears having a chance to cover in garbage time. And believe me, I was getting a bit nervous watching the Bears move the ball downfield. I say they didn't come close because they came 5 points from covering, you say they did come close because of the potential they had to score given the time left and the fact that they had they ball. I could see it your way, but I choose not to. I don't think that means I'm ignoring the obvious, I truly would call losing by 12 with a 7 point spread "not coming close". That dosen't mean using your logic it would be wrong to say they did come close. It's kind of a circular argument. After all, what is "close"? We know what "close" is in horseshoes and hand grenades, but in football "close" is kind of a realtive term. As far as the professionaly handicappers, Yes I know a lot of them had the Bears and the poitns as a ten star, lead pipe cinch. But I saw more than a few that said take the Colts, give the points, and bet the house. It's would take a long time to actually figure what the majority picked. YOU MAY BE CORRECT, I admit that. But I'm not only talking about online handicappers, I'm talking about the people that placed wagers. Around here conventional wisdom was give the Bears the 6.5 or 7 points. I don't deny that geography may have played into that. I know a lot of Bears fans that were eating that up like candy, and a lot of Bears haters that were not scared to take that bet as well. Honestly, I don't know how you could verify it, but if you say most online handicappers and "experts" had the Bears, I'll take your word for it. Whether that was a big miss or a close shave... They can decide for themselves.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Barring key injuries, lines between teams are generally fairly consistent with the lines each of the teams has with their common opponents. In this case, there were five comparison games:
Bears Colts Difference Giants +1.5 -3 Colts 4.5 better Jets -5 -7.5 Colts 2.5 better Bills -9.5 -12 Colts 2.5 better Dolphins -12.5 -9.5 Bears 3 better Patriots +4.5 +3 Colts 1.5 better The outlier game is the Dolphins, which is understandable - the Colts came into it having lost 3 of their last 4, and having lost their last game to Houston (one of only six wins for the Texans). In contrast, the Dolphins game came on the Bears schedule when the Bears were 7-0. That game notwithstanding, the Colts were considered about a field goal better than the Bears throughout the year. That's about what the line would have been in a "normal" case. The Super Bowl, however, attracts so much action from casual bettors that the lines are often atypical. In this case, that action was mostly generated by the contrast between easily the best quarterback in the league, Peyton Manning, and a mediocre quarterback often blasted as being a horrible quarterback, Rex Grossman. Essentially, what happened is exactly what Vandy described - a line more consistent with the rest of the year, and more consistent with what the consensus of professional handicappers envisioned for the game (Bears +3 to +4), would not have generated enough action on Chicago, mostly because of the Manning factor. So, they DID "go as far out as they felt comfortable, to encourage the Bears fans to bet"...they went out to +7, at which point there was more Bears action than Colts action, and the line was trimmed to 6 1/2, partly because of the disparity in action, and partly because the weather was considered favorable for the Bears. The books were still exposed on the Chicago side, however, and won big when the Colts covered.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
And having said all THAT, congrats to Vandy and everyone else who cashed a ticket. I don't know if it was a "good" game, with 8 turnovers, but it was a fun one to watch. Losing my Bears bet didn't bother me, but I also had the total to go over 46 1/2, and when the Colts didn't line up for that last potential field goal, I cringed a bit. Given the Bears defense & special teams, and the state of the game, perfectly understandable and the kind of smart move you'd expect from Tony D, but still.
So, on to more important football topics...can the Raiders get into the playoffs this year?!
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Before we turn to the future of the Raiders. Thanks for showing those comparison games. I think you are right on when you talk about the lines for the Superbowl. They do get tweaked becuase of the casual betters. Also, I would say you are correct that going to 7 was taking it to the outer reaches, but you have to understand that I have a serious bias against the Bears that affects my thinking and also affects the way I saw the game. Hindsight is helpful as well. LOL!
As far as the Raiders... I don't know man, I don't know. They are going to have to show me something first. Favre says the Pack should persue Randy Moss, as a Raiders fan what are your thoughts about Mr Moss? I have some thought about him and they are not very kind.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
Vandy -
I know EXACTLY what you mean, believe me...I'm the same way about games that involve the Chargers, the Chiefs, or the Broncos. The Seahawks I can deal with, because they moved out of the AFC West. Moss would have been a great fit for the Raiders of the 70's...good team, good O-line, and they developed that persona that was sort of based on having all of the attitude problems of the league in one place. I don't really want him on the Raiders. He might be a better fit on the Packers, with a better team and a better QB (and leader) in Favre. You're always taking a chance with players like that, but it's double-edged. T.O. is considered a "cancer," but he got Philly to the Super Bowl, and if one other player had as good a game as he did, they might have won it. Haven't seen them back in it since they dumped him. You'd LOVE to get the players that have major game AND good attitudes, but they're a lot harder to come by. WHere do you draw the line? On balance, if I were a Pack fan, I probably wouldn't want Moss. I'd try to build it up with newer guys who don't have the history. Moss would be a better fit for a team right on the verge, who need that one more player to get over the hump.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts
|
I'd be THRILLED if the Raiders got to 6-10, by the way, and I don't think it's happening. The highlight of my year will be watching the Chargers, who should have been about 11-5 or 12-4, drop to 10-6 or so once they get a taste of a 1st-place schedule.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
Quote:
Moss would be a better fit for a team right on the verge, who need that one more player to get over the hump. I believe that Favre and the Pack think they can make a run, that's why they want him. And tht's why Favre came back. They won their last four games and thier (almost) all rookie O-line made great strides. The defense is shaping up and AJ Hawk may be better than Ulacher someday. Somebody to take some of the pressure off of Donald Driver would be a big help. I think the Packers feel that if the Bears can make it to the Superbowl, they have a shot to do it as well. These days the NFL is a season to season thing. Not many dynastys anymore. BTW the Bears are facing a very tough schedule next year. And they might even have a QB controversy to face now! LOL! Personally I don't like Moss. But he is almost worthless in this league now. That's often the time a person makes a turn around. With a very small contract and a VERY short leash, he might be worth taking a chance on. I didn't think picking up Andre Rison was a good idea in the Packers 96' Superbowl season, but it did wind up paying off.
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
|
Vandy Grift Inner circle Milwaukee 3504 Posts
|
P.S. How could I ever forgive Moss? He wiped his ASS on the goalposts in Lambeau Field for Gods sake!
"Get a life dude." -some guy in a magic forum
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Whos going to the Super Bowl? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Feb 5, 2007 10:10 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|