| Author |
Message |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: 1 |
|
Ah. The only other item I am usually willing to wager with is beer. I guess I just won't get to profit from their loss  |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: 0 |
|
Mrs. Zag was a professional potter for several years. We've got plenty, thanks.  |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject: -1 |
|
OK--- I'll bet $50* worth of pottery the pats will lose. What do you have to offer?
*based on my limited experiences selling pottery. I guess that it would be a very nice large bowl or 2 mugs. I would be happy to come to any agreeable amount because pottery is free for me to make at this time. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:48 pm Post subject: -2 |
|
I just looked it up, and the official point spread is the Pats are favored by 3.5 points! I'm a little surprised. (Also, I'd rather they be the underdogs.)
Remember, though, that the bookies are not really trying to set the spread such that there is a 50% chance of winning either way. They are trying to set the spread so that 50% of the bets are on either side. They don't care who wins as long as the bets are evenly matched. |
|
 |
| Quailman |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:20 pm Post subject: -3 |
|
What is this, the w00t and crap football thread? We already know who the winner is here:
| Quote: |
| Code: |
This
Player Week Total
------ ---- -----
Quailman 442 5173
sAbLLimINal 568 5100
Undercover Monk 0 4309
MatthewV 481 4259
Suspence 0 4207
Zag 0 4184
JDTAY 422 4154
ShadowSword 0 3613
Jaguar 0 3387
dethwing 0 0 |
|
Sorry. I just won a Mafia game that I didn't expect to, so I figured I'd come and gloat here too. |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:44 am Post subject: -4 |
|
Professional sports should be about mindless, shameless pride. The Pats are going down!
errr who are they playing? When is this game? I don't care- They are going down!! |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:03 am Post subject: -5 |
|
I realize that you were using hyperbole, and didn't really mean NO chance.
I agree that, on paper, the Giants are the better team. Maybe not by as much as you think they are, or even the book-makers in Vegas, but I agree that they are better. On paper. Of course, on paper the Packers were much better than the Giants, and look what that got them.
But that's why we play the games. |
|
 |
| Undercover Monk |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:36 pm Post subject: -6 |
|
@Zag actually I agree with a lot of what you had to say. Its just that the giants looked bad against what may have been the best overall defense in the NFL this year, In a hostile rain soaked enviroment. Both games were went down to the wire so its not like the pats rolled over baltimore. My insistence on a giant victory is more just a reflection of how good the NFC was this year.
two heavy weight contenders the saints and packers didnt even make the championship match that how good the niners and giants were. dont tell me that the patriots were a better TEAM than the niners, saints, or packers. and remember Im an AFC fan but if you are objective about it the giants should be favored just cause they are the NFC champion.
so yes Tom Brady (as much as it pains me) is a better QB than eli BUT the giants are the better team. Lets see how the re-newed Pats D does against an explosive pass game. Brady has faced Tebow and Flacco (who while he played well is not in eli's league) Eli and the Giants will be different. |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: -7 |
|
| I'm just talking football. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: -8 |
|
I'm not arguing that the Giants should probably be favored in this match. but not that much, and a lot of that is hangover from the regular season, much of which the Pats seem to have patched up in the post season (i.e. their horrendous defense). My note was a response to
| UMonk wrote: |
| Pats dont stand a chance. |
|
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: -9 |
|
| I saw a thing on nfl.com which showed 4th quarter stats, and Manning has a helluva lot of clutch. If the Giants can break up Brady's O-line, they will do just fine. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:24 am Post subject: -10 |
|
Considering how pathetic the Giants looked in their game, I would have to disagree. If it weren't for one idiot punt returner screwing up TWICE (Was it the same guy, or two different idiots?) they wouldn't have won.
Anyway, even though we didn't really see much of it last game, we have Tom Brady, and you ... well, you have Eli Manning, which is also pretty darn good. (My comment in the Denver game was that we have Tom Brady, and you don't, to steal a Chevy Chase line. Maybe not so true against the Giants.) Still, the teams are close enough that it clearly isn't a gimme. It's not the mismatch that, for instance, the 2001-2 Superbowl was, where the Rams were such obvious (14 point!) favorites over the Patriots. Oh, wait ... we won that one; didn't we?
Also, I watched that incompletion in super slow motion, clicking forward one frame at a time on my DVR. It would not have been overturned on replay (though I agree it was close enough that they should have reviewed.) He had already picked up his foot by the time he had control, and the ball was knocked out before that foot landed again. |
|
 |
| Undercover Monk |
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: -11 |
|
yeah Pats are in it but the ravens were robbed. Im not sure if lee eveans caught that pass but it should have been reviwed. Just the NFL once again doing anything in their power to placate brady and belicheck. How am I supposed to enjoy the superbowl village and all the festivities with Pats fans walking the streets of my town. =(
Pats dont stand a chance. would have lost to either the NFC team. In fact so would the Ravens. the NFC was just heads and tails above the AFC this year. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:10 am Post subject: -12 |
|
I think I would have preferred that we play the 49ers, but I don't care that much either way. Considering how terrible the Giants looked, maybe that is the easier opponent to defeat. Either way, that the Patriots are in it is all that really matters, well, that they win it. That's the best outcome. Whom they beat to do it is less important.
 |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: -13 |
|
Hello, 2007 repeat. This was the worst I could imagine for the Superbowl. (Okay, the Steelers going and winning would have been worse, but that's it.) |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:34 am Post subject: -14 |
|
| Giants 20, Fortyniners 17, final score. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: -15 |
|
| Fortyniners fumble. The Giants have the ball on the Fortyniner 24. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:08 am Post subject: -16 |
|
| Overtime coming up. My 27 to 17 prediction can't come true. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:58 am Post subject: -17 |
|
| 0 for 11. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:48 am Post subject: -18 |
|
| The Fortyniners are 0 for 10 on third down conversions. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:46 am Post subject: -19 |
|
| 17 to 17 with 4:07 left in the game. The Fortyniners have the ball on their own 35. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:31 am Post subject: -20 |
|
| Giants 17, Fortyniners 14 with 8:34 left in the game. My prediction could still be correct. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:35 pm Post subject: -21 |
|
| I predict a Fortyniners win over The Giants 27 to 17. |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: -22 |
|
| And slowly but surely my hopes for the playoffs continue to go down the drain. I do not want another Pats/Giants Superbowl. |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:33 am Post subject: -23 |
|
I don't know.
And why the hell didn't the damn Packers receivers pour some sticky on their hands? |
|
 |
| Quailman |
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:14 pm Post subject: -24 |
|
| Yeah. WTF was Jacoby Jones thinking on that punt play early on? |
|
 |
| Jedo the Jedi |
Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: -25 |
|
I'm so disappointed the Texans lost. They threw it away.
At least I finally get to watch my team flex their muscles. |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: -26 |
|
| And the real reason lies in posts 15 and 18 |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:08 am Post subject: -27 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| MatthewV wrote: |
I did better than Zag!
~dances~
:-) |
Seriously? I SUCK at this game! I haven't even bothered to create a new list in the past 4 weeks or so. This is easily the best I've done in three years of playing. I don't quite understand why I became the target to outperform, unless you were just trying to find some reason to congratulate yourselves. |
I made one change and didn't watch a single game of football this season. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:57 am Post subject: -28 |
|
| I played in game #2 in 2005 that was run by Eykir. I didn't do well. |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: -29 |
|
I second that! Thanks, Chuck!
Next year I want to see your choices, and see how you stack up against the rest of us.  |
|
 |
| Quailman |
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:46 pm Post subject: -30 |
|
I think you became a target when you boasted about passing me one week.
This is the first time Quailman has won. I think I won two years in a row a while back by thinking with my little head (Stubby sent my entries).
Most weeks I chose 21 to 25 teams out of 32. This week I got conservative to protect my lead and only chose 15. Had I used my usual strategy, the Broncos would have been in the next three or four teams.
Thanks for running this again, Chuck! |
|
 |
| Zag |
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:37 am Post subject: -31 |
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
I did better than Zag!
~dances~
 |
Seriously? I SUCK at this game! I haven't even bothered to create a new list in the past 4 weeks or so. This is easily the best I've done in three years of playing. I don't quite understand why I became the target to outperform, unless you were just trying to find some reason to congratulate yourselves. |
|
 |
| Undercover Monk |
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:08 am Post subject: -32 |
|
also I did better than Zag too  |
|
 |
| Undercover Monk |
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: -33 |
|
| I will take 3rd place for the little work I put into it this year. |
|
 |
| MatthewV |
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: -34 |
|
I did better than Zag!
~dances~
 |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:35 am Post subject: -35 |
|
| Code: |
Week 17 team scores:
Patriots 49
Falcons 45
Packers 45
Saints 45
Lions 41
Chargers 38
Eagles 34
Fortyniners 34
Giants 31
Rams 27
Raiders 26
Buccaneers 24
Ravens 24
Cardinals 23
Titans 23
Texans 22
Bills 21
Seahawks 20
Dolphins 19
Jaguars 19
Bears 17
Jets 17
Panthers 17
Bengals 16
Cowboys 14
Colts 13
Steelers 13
Vikings 13
Redskins 10
Browns 9
Chiefs 7
Broncos 3
This
Player Week Total
------ ---- -----
Quailman 442 5173
sAbLLimINal 568 5100
Undercover Monk 0 4309
MatthewV 481 4259
Suspence 0 4207
Zag 0 4184
JDTAY 422 4154
ShadowSword 0 3613
Jaguar 0 3387
dethwing 0 0
756 points were available this week and 8525 points total.
Week 1 choices are probably due Sunday, September 9 at 1:00 PM EDT. |
|
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:21 am Post subject: -36 |
|
| Touchdown, Cowboys! |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:54 am Post subject: -37 |
|
| The Cowboys have nothing at halftime. Undercover Monk could still win this thing. |
|
 |
| Chuck |
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:06 am Post subject: -38 |
|
| The Cowboys have nothing at the end of the first quarter. |
|
 |