Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
RIP, indeed. Best owner in the history of Philly sports.
Gotta think he wouldn't care at all about me saying that this makes the Flyers as inspired as can be and a great value play |
Polar_Bear | 9 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by 5_for_Fighting:
Give Philly a break, it's the closest that city will come to any kind of hardware ( unless they have steroids taking relievers on their team ) It's crap like this from New Yawkas that PULLS ME BACK IN to the these forums. Maybe 5 for fighting has forgotten that the Yankees probably accounted for 50+ % of BALCO's invoices for the last 15 years. |
CheezeStack | 24 |
|
|
Great draw for the US
|
ScamDCappn | 31 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by lordkaervek:
wow...3 hours!!!...can't they just do it quickly and get it over with probably as agonizing as watching the NBA draft lottery Seriously. The first hour of this forced me to crack a beer |
ScamDCappn | 31 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by peanutt612:
Quote Originally Posted by peanutt612:
My Line Was Actually At 41 So I Pushed If Ya Had 42 Congrats On The Low Seriously.. be real man. This is garbage |
peanutt612 | 15 |
|
|
Maybe this guy really did see something larger, but whatever is in the video ain't no 30 feet |
Mikael99 | 12 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by PokerBeerKush:
Prediction: D. Mcnabb A.K.A Jeckal and Hyde, plays like the ugly creature this week. Considering McNabb played pretty, correct that, UGLY ugly last week, you may want to re-think this line of reasoning |
WussieMan | 74 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by ChanceP:
The Mets? Book it? WOW. Bookies will never go broke. You got a guy saying that a team trhat was COMPLETE DOGSHIT last year, and TOTAL FUKN WEAK SACK CHOKERS the 2 years before are "book it" locks to win the World Series. God some of you guys are just complete fucking morons If you like the Mets fine, but "book it"??????? |
roccohorse | 30 |
|
|
Capping Eagles games is beyond frustrating. They're the most enigmatic team in the league. Seeing as they usually bounce back after lukewarm performances, I'd lean towards taking the points, especially if it gets to 3. And I'm staying away from their total as well. They could drop 34 or 17 on SD this week. |
CURRRTIS123 | 32 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
This - in a nutshell - is a slice of capitalism that is anti-darwin. It is not survival of the fittest - it is not promoting brains and academia - it is not promoting the best and the brightest to be educators.... The economics of this mean that if you are dumb and a terrible role model you can essentially bypass natural selection because capitalism favors money no matter what - if you are fat and dumb but have a lot of money you are more attractive to the other sex than someone who is genetically strong - thus sending evolutionary characteristics in to a tailspin. Can't a point of contention be raised though, that this is looking at a VERY small amount of time in evolutionary terms? Even if we were to stretch out this "bank account-reigns-supreme-regardless-of-superior-genetics" mindset of natural selection back (generously IMO) 80 years when modern sports first began to generate large incomes, can't we assume that true, prevailing, overriding selection will eventually re-establish itself? If the type of female that is driven to mate-attraction solely based on bank accounts produces "sub-standard" descendants in terms of advancement of the species, wouldn't natural process take over and facilitate future prospective "choice" mates to be enticed by different criteria? I'm not a an darwin/evolution guru, but this is my basic understanding of the theory. Keep in mind we are talking about just a portion of the overall population here- the American (and global to be fair) sports culture. There are obviously more worthy females out there who do not determine the value of a mate based on bank account. For example, which pair is more likely to produce a beneficial-to-the-species descendant- an empty headed, smokin hot stripper and a Ron Artest-ish athletic star, or a sociology professor and an educated waitress? Granted, that is an extreme contrast, and the stripper-athlete offspring may indeed have more monetary resources. But the general intellectual/species-developmental awareness of the other would tend to be far more likely to be superior and in greater numbers worldwide (specieswide). Oh, and there are many high-salary coaches out there who could be out-coached on gameday by millions of Madden players. |
luckbythetruck | 24 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack:
You dont only kick it because Bama could get 2 FGs and win - BUT IF YOU KICK ANOTHER FG YOU ARE UP BY 9 INSTEAD OF 8!! Just so fucking stupid. It really is amazing that millions of Madden players know how to better manage the clock and score than many of these high-profile, big $ coaches |
vanzack | 78 |
|
|
Seriously bro, re-watch the Hawks/'Nucks series last year and come back at us
|
clepto | 53 |
|
|
Not that kenzo went about making his point the best way, but it's always amusing when people bring up a post count to determine someone's "cred"
|
kenzotrash | 28 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by MACX:
I'm glad you described the distinction between the two types of sportsbooks because I'm not sure many understand it. My question to you is why are there two types of books? From a business model standpoint, why would one book decide to take serious action from serious gamblers, while another book caters only to the $20 recreational gambler? It seems like there are tradeoffs for both models, but I'm not sure I'm able to weigh those tradeoffs correctly as far as the bottom line is concerned. I'm not as well versed as vanzack and others on this, but the obvious answer to me about the books that cater to the $20 recreational gamblers is that there are probably millions of more customers on that end. As for your other question, my guess is that the high limit books figure that for all the serious gamblers there are out there who will throw 20k on a game, there would be a similar amount who have the money that just want big action and aren't as "sharp". |
David_Payne | 28 |
|
|
Don't you guys see the difference between a team earning hits off a closer and an outfielder dropping a fly ball that 90% of all major league left fielders would catch?
I just don't understand how anyone can give the Dodgers the starting pitching edge here. Bullpen, fine- there's a legitimate advantage. But look at who the Dodgers are throwing here:
Kershaw- an impressive 21 year old who doesn't exactly have great #'s vs. the Phils, who are a decidely better hitting team than than the Cards or any other NL team.
Padilla- who can have great stuff yet be a time bomb in any inning- not good vs. an explosive offense.
Kuroda- yeah, he shut down the Phillies in last year's LCS, but is coming off an injury
Wolf- a journeyman if there ever was one
If the Dodgers can get 3-4 good to great innings from their pen every game, then they are certainly in this. But the Phillies are coming at them with a proven big game pitcher in Hamels, a combination of Pedro and Blanton, a Cy Young winner in Lee, and a ROY candidate in Happ who has had great numbers in every venue that has been above 35 degrees. At minimum, the Phillies have the edge in 3 of those games from the get go, backed by a tremendous offense.
The Dodgers are a very good team for sure, but everyone seems to caught up in their annual media buzz and forgetting about the quality of their opponent.
|
WarmSword | 4 |
|
|
...is a bit funny. Weren't they favorites last year coming off a first round sweep? I know it's been repeated ad nauseum, but they were a Matt Holliday dropped fly ball away from going back to St. Louis tied 1-1.
I don't know how anyone could feel confident at betting against a defending champion that obviously still has it's edge, especially when you look at the Dodgers' rotation set-up. Do you Dodger backers really feel that confident throwing journeymen re-treads like Wolf and Padilla against this tested Phillies team?
|
WarmSword | 4 |
|
|
Respect your opinion NJD, but you can't be serious with Jack Edwards. He sounds like one of his sons plays for the team.
Homers
|
DunnoMate | 15 |
|
|
The biggest problem I have with McNabb is the damn annoying woe-is-me routine that happens annually. Ok Donovan, we get it- you have been bitter from the beginning since those losers booed you on draft day. YOU ARE 1-4 IN NFC CHAMPIONSHIPS. Shut up and get it done. Nobody wants to hear a 100 million dollar athlete act like he is the most persecuted person in America
|
jsab | 22 |
|
|
Coming from a Sixers fan, this team is just brutal. Borderline unwatchable at times. I had the over 189 so I pushed, but betting on the Sixers is a lost cause
|
IlliniBill | 65 |
|
|
weeble
The Kings have been for me lately. If I were a Kings fan, I would be very optimistic about the team. That defense is going to be stellar in 2-3 years.
|
weeble5672 | 24 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.