YTD 70-86(-13.92)
Last 17: 6-11 -5.30
Last 7: 5-2 +4.95
Almost quit after a bad run starting in early June. The last 7 bets have put some air in my lungs, and hopefully I can get some more breaths in.
There was a bad beat in there when the Sox lost in the 9th inning, real close to 6-1.
I'll try to keep the momentum going. Good Luck
O's 1st 5 innings TT O2.5(+115) *1.00/1.15
Bradish/Lodolo listed
Lodolo just punked the Brewers 2 games in a row. Looked great. Different dynamics today, different lineups and situation.
Since June 8th vs right handed hitters(14 innings), 18.5% K, 12.3% BB, .255 BA, 1.50 WHIP, expected FIP 5.38
Since June 15 vs right handed hitters(9 innings), 16.7% K, 16.7% BB, .281 BA, 1.78 WHIP, expected FIP 5.57
Then he faced the Brewers, where the walk rate and xfip continued to climb...but he got through them with a super low babip. In his last game, 4 k's, 4 walks, only 1 hit, with 6 line drives that ended up as loud outs.
The O's platoon 8 right handed bats today. And let's not forget that the O's hit ground ball pitchers better than any team in the MLB.
The O's have only 29 plate appearances vs Lodolo, where they've hit him only at .219. But with 17.2% walks and 94.4 mph exit velo.
Lodolo is awful in day games(4) vs 6 at night.
Something has to pop against Lodolo soon, I'll guess today for +115
https://www.covers.com/forum/nfl-betting/jj-mccarthy-103914300
This was my reply on the situation at the time and I mostly still agree:
I keep hearing "experts" on national sports media talk about JJ McCarthy like he's a sure-fire franchise QB
He isn't. He can develop into one with the proper work and coaching over a long period of time.
By this, I mean is not 'sure-fire'. But he does have the tools to be a 'franchise' QB. He can develop, just as Darnold has, over time.
It is not like he was 'sure-fire' like Luck was -- but no QB last year was.
But it is a nice spot for the Vikings to be in, because they have choices now.
Darnold was always going to be a 'bridge' between Cousins and McCarthy.
So, now do you really want to pay money to keep Darnold when he is, basically, having just a breakout year?
When you scout, draft, sign, and start developing a 'sure-fire franchise QB' -- you know it.
For example, Luck, Manning, Burrow, etc. There is never much question from the 'experts' or even the fans about the direction to go with a QB.
That is why, even several games into the season (or even now), Viking fans were still talking about 'McCarthy or Darnold'. Because neither is seen as a true franchise can't-miss type of QB.
What if the Vikings lose in the first-round -- do they move on from Darnold; or if they make it to the CF or SB -- would that solidify them sticking with Darnold?
I like when teams take the time to develop QBs instead of throwing them into the 'fire'. I think it can be a setback for the QB and the team if they do not.
Even if they have a breakout year, like Stroud, the expectations going forward for the team and the QB may be unrealistic. Even Stroud has had some hiccups this year.
If you are 'sure-fire' you do not get scouted and drafted behind the guys that went in from of him -- you are the first (maybe second) QB drafted.
When was the last time 2 sure-fire guys went in the same draft? Eli, Rivers? Luck and maybe RG III, if he had't got hurt? Or Peyton and Leaf?
No, he is NOT 'sure-fire' because that means he is drafted 1st and is playing right away and very little development is needed and there is no controversy.
BUT he can certainly develop over time into a 'franchise' QB.
BUT I do not trust Darnold past this year for the type of money someone is going to be willing to pay him.
But it is nice to have two good QBs on your team that you can turn to.
I would also add that, to me, just because someone starts for a team (maybe for years) does not make them a true 'franchise' QB. It just means there are no great QBs they can draft or trade for and stick with a solid starter.
Just being a longtime starter does not make you a franchise QB -- to me.
I really lean to the Cubs today. They try to avoid the sweep, but more importantly it's get away day for the Cards who face the Brewers for a 5 game series starting tomorrow. They have a double header scheduled in that series.
But a lot of things pop up suggesting that Assad could get rocked. He's starting today, but his last outing was from out of the pen. I don't like the disruption in his routine.
As I looked at the over as a possible play, other things are suggesting the under here. Both pitchers should be comfortable with their catchers today. Liberatore has ass backwards platoon splits, he's been better vs righties and the Cubs are using 7. Although the 2 lefty's are hitting in the 1 hole, and 5 hole(Bush struggling).
8 is a real low total at Wrigley, but I think both teams could put up runs. Liberatore handled the Cubs earlier this year.
This game has become a 100% no bet for me.
@undermysac
I still do not think Darnold is 'elite' enough to be a 'franchise' guy to pay that sort of money to.
I think with the weapons MINN already had in place at the time they were poised to make a deep run.
So, going forward to me there were only two options: Go with JJ or get Rodgers and let JJ learn another year, maybe two years.
I have no problem even in hindsight letting Darnold go at that price.
The HUGE issue would have been if they paid him and he did not deliver, again.
Then they would have had a BIG problem at QB. Because they could not have unloaded Darnold and then it would be dicey to go with JJ.
Only two teams were in a position to make a run with Rodgers as a stopgap -- PIT and MINN.
Rodgers knew the WR and defense situation in MINN and wanted to go there to beat GB and knew that division and liked his playoff chances. Instead he had to go to the division with BLT, CINN, etc.
Then MINN would not have had a problem if Rodgers did not work out to switch to JJ -- and money would not be a problem.
THAT is why I wonder how much O'Connel had to say about which direction they went.
@Raiders22
1. Did anything change in your opinion since Darnold won a SB with the Seahawks?
2. I'm not 100% sure if it was KOC or the old GM who was responsible for drafting JJ. I think that is important for us to know. Although it could of been a joint decision. If it was indeed the gm, then KOC was dealing with trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If it was KOC who wanted him, then he has to eat it, it's his mess.
Good stuff, good conversation. It's never too early to look at the nfl.
@Raiders22
Last thing about the nfl future.
From the afc side of things, one major thing about the afc north this year. Every team except the Bengals have new coaching.
How can't "that" not be a good starting point at taking a look at the Bengals for futures? The qb position is solid with Burrow, and Zac Taylor isn't a slouch by any means. Also coming from a great coaching tree.
@undermysac
1. Did anything change in your opinion since Darnold won a SB with the Seahawks?
The short answer is: he's probably better than his early career suggested, but not as good as his best season made him look.
He has always had flashes of arm strength and ability to make difficult throws. His processing time has gotten better, better turnover avoidance, etc.
BUT with O'Connell, he was surrounded by better pass protection, a better offensive system with more clearly defined reads, elite WR talent, improved footwork and easier and better decision-making.
I think a LOT of that is due to O'Connell. But his accuracy still can disappear under pressure, still has shaky decision-making as the pocket collapses, and he is more volatile than, say Burrow, is.
So, I cannot put him in an elite category. So, no I would not have paid him the big money to stay.
But at that time as the team was peaking a case can be made for it.
Now can O'Connell do that with JJ?
The other thing you have to consider as a team peaks is how much a 'good' or 'average' QB's performance drops off as the more elite talent that surrounds them moves on for bigger money or gets hurt. I do not think he is the type of QB to step up and can a team as the surrounding talent diminishes. Nowadays, it is too hard to keep a team at a peak for long.
@undermysac
2. I'm not 100% sure if it was KOC or the old GM who was responsible for drafting JJ. I think that is important for us to know. Although it could of been a joint decision. If it was indeed the gm, then KOC was dealing with trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. If it was KOC who wanted him, then he has to eat it, it's his mess.
I agree 100%
@undermysac
Absolutely, I love them I all sorts of futures and win totals, etc.
Burrow is a generational talent and is surrounded with elite WRs, etc. I think it is their division to lose and likely their Conference to lose.
YTD 70-86(-13.92)
Last 17: 6-11 -5.30
Last 7: 5-2 +4.95
Almost quit after a bad run starting in early June.
Last year in late June, I was DOWN -19.03u YTD (all counted at one unit per pick of course) but my YTD by the end of the season finished +28.47u
Huge turnaround.
No reason why you can't also turn yours around.
It may be just a random/cyclical thing for a portion of the season, like a hot streak vs batting slump type of deal. Cyclical 
BoL
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
