NFL Week 1 Lines - Page 3

ttleistdci · #21 08-30-2005, 10:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The pats are gonig to murder the raiders. Remember last year when the pats won the super bowl and the raiders were awful. Neither team has changed that much in the off season.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been living under a rock for the past 6 months? The Raiders grabbed Randy Moss, who is arguably the best at what he does. They also added LaMont Jordan, who should have a breakout year.
The Pats lost their offensive and defensive coordinators and added some players at key positions. This includes picking up LB Chad Brown.
And you don't think either team has changed?

gjm112 · #22 08-30-2005, 11:17 PM

Fair enough. That was the pats fan in me talking about how the raiders ore gonig to get killed. It is a bunch of crap. you are right. I'm not gonig to touch this game with any of my money, and talking about how i feel teh pats are gonig to win probably deserves to be in a differnet forum all together. Sorry.

hobbes9324 · #23 08-31-2005, 01:49 AM

Well, last year GB at Detroit ended up 38-10 Packers, so if you think recency means anything......
You also had the "GB can't win in a dome" theory until last year, when they knocked off Minn. at Minn. to win the division.
Agree that GB has a suspect defense, and you would hope Detroit isn't as bad as they looked last week, but I think GB is going to blitz Harrington every down - and he isn't going to handle it. I suspect Detroit would have a better chance starting Garcia - which they won't do.
I think GB wins pretty easily - not so much because I think they're that good - I just think Detroit is going to be a bust.

McGahee · #24 08-31-2005, 08:40 AM

I like the Ravens getting a FG at home in primetime vs. Indy. A less healthy Ravens team pretty much shut down the Colts last year in the dome for 3 Qtrs, and I expect Balt's offense to be better this year.

To a lesser extent I like the Jets getting a FG as well.

Yeah, I wouldn't touch that GB-Det game with a 10 foot pole.

The Patriots ARE going to murder the Raiders.
Who exactly did they lose other than Bruschi and Weiss?
Law missed the majority of last year, Roman Phifer is old as hell and lost his job to one-dimensional Ted Johnson last year, who subsequently wasn't needed anymore either.
The Pats' losses have been greatly exaggerated. Even the coordinators. Crennel was very good, but it was always Belichick's defense.
Moss might make a pretty play or two, but as soon as they turn the ball over (and they will) they're going to be playing from 10-14 points down because their defense is Swiss Cheese, and if you're at all familiar with Kerry Collins, you can see the turnovers start to snowball from there.

#25 08-31-2005, 08:53 AM

People, it's just one game. Anyone so sure of a Pats murder or an outright Raiders win should play this game massively, but alas something tells me hyperbole abounds here.

McGahee · #26 08-31-2005, 09:37 AM

Yes it's only one game, and yes I'll probably wuss out and not bet the mortgage on the game because well, it's usually a stupid thing to do.
I like to talk football, I would bet on it if I had to pick 3 games for that week, and I just don't think the gap between the 2 teams has closed nearly as much as others in this thread have been saying. That is all.

craig r · #27 08-31-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
People, it's just one game. Anyone so sure of a Pats murder or an outright Raiders win should play this game massively, but alas something tells me hyperbole abounds here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously like home dogs, but I think historically the first week (maybe even two) they don't cover as often. I am not 100% certain on this, but I am pretty sure.

As far as the 7.5, I don't understand your math (I am not great with math), but I know there is a reason the books don't like to move off of the 3 and 7. And usually when they do they are taking a stance on the game. So, why would you not want to side with the book for the extra 10 cents? (especially since you are already getting low vig anyways)? Would you have taken OAK +6.5? I am just curious.

Also, off topic, but I think you think i am picking on you. I am really not a jerk. I don't think you can win with just two books? I know that you always pay on/off the 3 or 7, etc... But, it isn't personal. The only reason I was a dick at first was because it seemed like you wanted to tout on Ebay.

craig

#28 08-31-2005, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I obviously like home dogs, but I think historically the first week (maybe even two) they don't cover as often.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Raiders are a road dog not a home dog.

[ QUOTE ]
So, why would you not want to side with the book for the extra 10 cents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you're going to lose a bet 46.11% of the time, you'd rather lose $47.17 than $53.50. The 5.36% of such games that end directly on 7 don't make up the difference for the +7.5 play. This kind of saving adds up over the course of a long season.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you have taken OAK +6.5? I am just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm only comfortable bidding down to 7 or 3, and much less often with 3 than 7.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, off topic, but I think you think i am picking on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. If I couldn't back up my assertions I'd be gone by now. I handled the eBay thing wrong as it was.

tech · #29 08-31-2005, 11:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because if you're going to lose a bet 46.11% of the time, you'd rather lose $47.17 than $53.50. The 5.36% of such games that end directly on 7 don't make up the difference for the +7.5 play. This kind of saving adds up over the course of a long season.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key to this debate is your 5.36% estimate of a push on the 7. Most resources (e.g., Wong's book, etc.) put that percentage higher, which would change the result of your analysis and make it wrong to sell off the 7.5.

#30 08-31-2005, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The key to this debate is your 5.36% estimate of a push on the 7. Most resources (e.g., Wong's book, etc.) put that percentage higher, which would change the result of your analysis and make it wrong to sell off the 7.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the estimate of the game ending on Pats by 7 is higher than 5.36%, then yes +7.5 -107 likely ends up the better play. Keep in mind my assertion for the 7 number is only for the Pats winning by 7, not the game ending in 7 for either team. That number is somewhere around 10% (don't have the exact figures) and is irrelevant to this argument.