The money game of the year is upon us: Pats @ Saints

I'm going to just root for the Saints to win this one..which would set up what I think will be a great play on the Redskins the following week.

 

 

Lol.... "do I not watch type?" lol.... You miss the point here... the Saint have beaten no one.  I will look forward to talking to you post game.

Patriots +3 120
Saints -3 E

Isn't Vegas asking for you to bet the Saints?  It should be a great game.  I may just take the over.

Well said brotha.

The guy that started this thread probably never seen the Saints play this year, just going off of 2007 hype.

that's probably because the #'s  you posted are not accurate

I don't agree there either; the pats have the 6th overall rated D in the NFL.  I see the Saints squeeking out 17, and maybe a backdoor 24 at the games end to the Pats 38.  Like I said, I hate the Pats, but ez money is ez moonnneyy.

NE opp def avg 21.5,  opp off avg 21.2

N.O  opp def avg  24.3, opp off avg 20.5

Dude this is what everyone on here said last week about Pitt this is the NFL teams play different at home. The Pats were so angry they loss to the Colts and they only put up 31 at home against a team that is trying to find their identity. The line will be at 1 come kickoff time. 69% of public are on NE I luv it motivation baby.

Hey Saintsfan,

Look, I get it, and cannot blame you.  If I were a Saints fan through all those years, and suffered as you did-I would be saying what you are as well.  You finally have a team no one can laugh at, and I am honestly happy for you. 

Yes Sir, I have indeed watch Saints games, and made money betting them.  I see every game, every week-I have lived in Vegas for almost 2 years now, and the casinos have every game on.  I have made money on betting Saints this year, so I have nothing against them.  My point is simple friend, and that is the Saints have played no one, and have beaten no one.  Their crowning victories were against a Philly team that is so inconsistant that they lost to the Raiders, and the Giants (who lost to Az, Philly, and barely beat the skins).... this is the first real team the Saints came within 10 zip codes of, and it is not going to be pretty.  It sucks that you have to endure reality like this, I wish your schedule would have allowed them to coast the last half, like they did the first half.  Sorry man, just stating facts.

Ok, here is what's so funny to me, I started a thread saying the same thing about Minny, but i get blasted when I stated the obvious, I respect your opinion but that crowd in the Dome is craaaazy. Ok, lets look at Ne losses, JETS,DEN,COLTS. Wins BUFF FALC BMORE TENN BUCS MIA Jets. Should have loss to Buff, I don't see this as so impressive.

I hear you, and see your point made.  My point is much like your; both teams have played less than stellar (average opponents) teams.  But my point is that the Saints have played an even softer schedule, and the Pats are still rated higher on both sides of the ball... recently, the Pats are at their high point (after a dismal start), and the Saints (not counting this past week) barely beat the Rams, and here playing first halves that required them having to play incredible second halves.... I am talking money here, and the more I watch, the more I realize the only diff between the NFL and the WWF is that the public knows that the WWF results are predetermined, but in certain cases-nothing can be done to stop the inevitable.... I would play a grand giving the Saints 13.5 if I were getting +1000 odds (1,000 to win 10,000)

First person from Minny to admit it.

Okay saintsfan504... so you admit that NO played less than stellar opponents too then?  Hell no you defend that NO played a much tougher schedule which is completely wrong.  You continue to try to tout that NO has a tough schedule (they had to win in TB you see... you mean the 1-9 TB, yes that is who I mean) but MIN had complete cupcakes (i.e. PIT, BAL, GB).  Give it a rest already.

Now hold on there.... Minnesota has had an even easier schedule than the Saint.... thier opponents have a combined record of 28-64-4 of their wins were against teams that have 2 or less wins for the season (detroit X 2, Cleve, and St Louis), they have only played 3 games against winning opponents (are 2-1 in those games for a combined score in those games of: 85-76)... though the stellar defense would urge me to taking the vikes over the Saints if that game were to take place now...but the Vikes definitely have an easier schedule than the Saints.

 

Thank You these idiots can't see this.

Calling out jerkson where are you now, stop talking nonsense and atart talking facts. By the way thanx for Sharperalso he is 2nd in ints this season. He is tied with your whole defense this season which is 7 interceptions.

I will take ne reason they got more experience also siant been playing the bad teams so it dont meant nothing.

And the Pats have lost to the three decent (not all great) teams they played.  First off, you totally miss the boat on the Indy game.  The Pats jumped out to a huge lead, and they couldn't hold it.  This is a familiar pattern.  Look at New England the last few years, they simply are not a great second half team.  And while Bill blew the call to go for it on fourth down, the FACT is, Indy still scored three times in the fourth quarter.  So save us the nonsense about the Pats beating Indy into the ground.  It didn't happen.  The Pats have also lost to the Broncos (who have since been exposed as a totally mediocre team who got by on smoke and mirrors) and if my memory serves me, the JETS - who have ALSO been exposed as mediocre (or worse) also beat down the Pats.  This is NOT 2007.  The Pats are not THE class of the NFL (or the AFC for that matter).  You can't help who you play, and while the Saints have some issues - so do the Pats.  The Pats can't run the ball.  The Saints CAN.  The Pats and Saints both have huge weapons on offense - and while you say Drew Brees has never won a big game - he went to a TERRIBLE team and has helped turn them around.  Tom Brady took over a team with talent - and while there is no disputing Brady as a great player, he's hardly the far and away best QB in the league anymore (Peyton is number one and it's not that close ... and then it's Brady and Brees in the discussion).

And your comment about the game being over in the first five minutes proves you haven't actually looked at the game or the teams.  You simply think it's 2007 and the Pats are the best team out there.  It isn't.  And they aren't.  This WILL be a close game.  Last team with the ball will win.  So if you want a bet of the year, take the over.  The Pats couldn't stop Indy in the second half, and they don't have a running game.  New Orleans does...

I'll take the over.

 

 

Thanks for proving you know very little about gambling.  Giving an additional 10.5 points to a team that is as potent on offense as the Saints is laughable.  If I thought you'd pay up (and my stock portfolio hadn't been crushed) I would take you up on this.  But when thre Saints cover the 13.5 you so generously give them - you'll be nowhere to be found.  Bank on that.

Well said my friend, here is a guy who just lose his ass off sitting in Vegas and swear he knows it all.

 

OVER OVER OVER

Let's see how high the O/U goes.  Yes I've seen my Colts and the Pats slug it out through the air recently but I'm actually considering an Under play, maybe even just 1st H if it goes high enough.

why is anybody even betting this game?  Are you all too much of a degenerate to just watch and enjoy the fireworks?

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

I don't know either, and Im certainly not going to bet my hard earned money on it.  Find an easier game, nuff said.

You obviously don't gamble, man every play is gonna mean something, the games are just better when you have cash out there IMO. Didn't you have a different avatar before?