Posted:
#101
Where's ABN? Witness protection program?
CD Newsletter Week 17
Posted:
#104
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ?
Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ?
Only the Rams ML in a parlay when the odds were on par to the -3 spread. But I should've took it early on. It's what, -6.5 now?
Posted:
#106
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness:
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ? Only the Rams ML in a parlay when the odds were on par to the -3 spread. But I should've took it early on. It's what, -6.5 now?
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ? Only the Rams ML in a parlay when the odds were on par to the -3 spread. But I should've took it early on. It's what, -6.5 now?
The Rams have gotten the most steam of any line it seems like. Makes sense though. I read that the Cardinals on their flight home from Carolina were dead silent. The beat reporter said it felt like flying to a funeral.
Posted:
#107
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness: Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ? Only the Rams ML in a parlay when the odds were on par to the -3 spread. But I should've took it early on. It's what, -6.5 now? The Rams have gotten the most steam of any line it seems like. Makes sense though. I read that the Cardinals on their flight home from Carolina were dead silent. The beat reporter said it felt like flying to a funeral.
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness: Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: Cardinals without 2 starting tackles and Conner and the number sits at 6', but if the sucker gets to 7 with reg juice i'm taking them. It's not like Rams offense has been a powerhouse, they have scored 2 td's in the last 8 qtr's. ICON did you get the 3 ? Only the Rams ML in a parlay when the odds were on par to the -3 spread. But I should've took it early on. It's what, -6.5 now? The Rams have gotten the most steam of any line it seems like. Makes sense though. I read that the Cardinals on their flight home from Carolina were dead silent. The beat reporter said it felt like flying to a funeral.
If I were a Cardinals fan, that's exactly how I'd want my team to feel. I don't want my team feeling comfortable after losing and getting eliminated from the playoffs. But I don't think it'll affect how they approach their game with the Rams. It's still a divisional game, and I know that division has teams that hate each other. Not sure how often the Cards are included in that club (I know Rams/49ers/Seahawks -- all teams with multiple winning seasons in recent history -- all do with each other.) I still like the Rams, maybe even still at that number; but I also wouldn't be surprised if an upset happens here.
Posted:
#108
Raiders (-1) @ Saints
I'm not sure you watch this game even if it was the only game playing this week. But it's a game listed in every sportsbook and, as such, I must present a brief write-up for it to honor the sanctity of the CD Newsletter. The first thing I'd like to bring up is the record for both clubs. The Raiders are dwelling at the bottom of their division, and are tied with the worst record in the AFC, along with the Jags, Titans, and Browns, as they sit at 3-12. They have only won 1 more game at home, which as of late hasn't been much of a homefield advantage for the Raiders. On the flip side, the Saints are sporting a 5-10 record and will probably lament over not being able to take advantage of such a weak division. (Both the Falcons and Buccs are atop the NFC South with a 8-7 record.) In a game where it's difficult to find angles, one could point to the fact that both teams will be searching for a franchise QB. Reports out of N'awlins is that it doesn't seem like the the Saints will be moving on from Carr next year. Perhaps the front office can point back to the injuries that have plagued the team and how Carr was able to lead the Saints past the Lions earlier in the season. He has 2 more years left on his contract and the Saints (again) are well over the cap next year. It would make sense to set the foundation for life after Carr -- whether it be a true franchise QB to sit and learn behind him, or someone to outright replace him next year. I suspect whomever the Saints end up hiring as HC next year will have a major say in this. (If not, I wouldn't want to work for a franchise with an all too controlling FO.) Speaking of Carr, the Saints will be facing his former team. This would've been the first game Carr would face against his old team had he been able to be healthy for it. Instead he'll just do the usual exchange of pleasantries with former teammates before and after the game. A major incentive ("the revenge angle") squandered when looking for betting angles!
Antonio Pierce is probably not long for this job. Maxx Crosby has hinted he wants out. Mark Davis now has allowed for Tom Brady's input regarding moves. (To what extent, I don't know -- but I say let him provide talent evaluation for drafts and personnel recommendations.) This is probably why Pierce is playing to win. He's going to be playing for his next job as some type of coordinator or assistant coach. You could say the same for Darren Rizzi, the interim head coach of the Saints. He was a ST coordinator and assistant head coach prior to being elevated to interim manager. He'll either be playing to retain his previous titles or look to strengthen his resume for whichever other team decides to hire him.
Why am I writing all this background stuff? Well, because what else do you write about when a 3-12 team faces a 5-10 team, with the head coaches and quarterbacks playing in this game? There's a significant difference in total DVOA between the two teams. Saints @ -8.6% vs Raiders @ -22.3% and nearly as bad when the VOA isn't adjusted.
I don't really have any thoughts on this game, to be honest. If anyone else does, feel free to chime in. This game is one of a few Draft Bowls. Who'll get the higher pick?
Posted:
#109
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Quote Originally Posted by Cyrax: I added a lot more on the Sac / Gino Over 41.5. I’m going with the public , need to make up for yesterday’s loss . Good Luck, you have nice weather and a shitty Bears D on your side. The Bears o line might be a problem though.
Quote Originally Posted by Cyrax: I added a lot more on the Sac / Gino Over 41.5. I’m going with the public , need to make up for yesterday’s loss . Good Luck, you have nice weather and a shitty Bears D on your side. The Bears o line might be a problem though.
The Bears need to run more screen plays in the 2H. 
Posted:
#110
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
@undermysac How bout Petey Carroll (sp) at the helm in ChiTown
@undermysac How bout Petey Carroll (sp) at the helm in ChiTown
If they go the young coach route, I'd pursue the following two:
Ben Johnson
Tanner Engstrand
Joe Brady
For the head coach with experience, I'd want:
Mike Vrabel
Joe Vrabel
I don't know if Vrabel is the HC you want to pair with a young QB like Caleb Williams, but if you want someone to run a tight ship and has game managing experience, he's your guy. He kind of petered out in Tennessee, but I think that change of scenery probably needed to happen earlier than it did. Ultimately, I think the Bears could benefit from a coordinator from the offensive side of the ball.
Under the maybe category:
Kellen Moore
Posted:
#112
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness:
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: @undermysac How bout Petey Carroll (sp) at the helm in ChiTown If they go the young coach route, I'd pursue the following two:Ben JohnsonTanner EngstrandJoe BradyFor the head coach with experience, I'd want:Mike VrabelJoe VrabelI don't know if Vrabel is the HC you want to pair with a young QB like Caleb Williams, but if you want someone to run a tight ship and has game managing experience, he's your guy. He kind of petered out in Tennessee, but I think that change of scenery probably needed to happen earlier than it did. Ultimately, I think the Bears could benefit from a coordinator from the offensive side of the ball.Under the maybe category: Kellen Moore
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1: @undermysac How bout Petey Carroll (sp) at the helm in ChiTown If they go the young coach route, I'd pursue the following two:Ben JohnsonTanner EngstrandJoe BradyFor the head coach with experience, I'd want:Mike VrabelJoe VrabelI don't know if Vrabel is the HC you want to pair with a young QB like Caleb Williams, but if you want someone to run a tight ship and has game managing experience, he's your guy. He kind of petered out in Tennessee, but I think that change of scenery probably needed to happen earlier than it did. Ultimately, I think the Bears could benefit from a coordinator from the offensive side of the ball.Under the maybe category: Kellen Moore
lol... I have no idea why I wrote that. Was thinking about Joe Brady and Mike Vrabel at the same time. Then realized I needed to move him up into the coordinator section.
Posted:
#115
Quote Originally Posted by iConsciousness:
Seahawks (-3.5) @ Bears
I feel like I haven't placed more than a single bet (if that) on each of these teams all year, so your guess is as good as mine. There is a zero percent chance of a Wild Card berth for the Seahawks. So what do they gotta do to make the playoffs? Well, they have to win a division in which the soaring Rams are in the driver's seat for. They'll be mathematically eliminated from winning the division (thus, making the playoffs), if they lose to the Bears and the Rams beat the Cardinals. The latter is a more likely outcome, so they will need to win just to live another week with an outside chance at making the playoffs. What do the Bears have to play for? Nothing other than the role of spoiler. The Seahawks O-line has been struggling and without a consistent rushing attack, it's hard for me to think this is a slam dunk play on the Seahawks. i tend to pick faves, but this is a game where I could possibly back the Bears. They've lost 9 straight, but take away all of their away games, and they're a .500 team. The Bears have O-line issues of their own, but the Bears somehow seem to hang with some of the better teams and lose admirably (Lions, Vikings, Packers) in some closely contested games. I lean Bears at +3.5 and will expect to get an earful from Sac.
Seahawks (-3.5) @ Bears
I feel like I haven't placed more than a single bet (if that) on each of these teams all year, so your guess is as good as mine. There is a zero percent chance of a Wild Card berth for the Seahawks. So what do they gotta do to make the playoffs? Well, they have to win a division in which the soaring Rams are in the driver's seat for. They'll be mathematically eliminated from winning the division (thus, making the playoffs), if they lose to the Bears and the Rams beat the Cardinals. The latter is a more likely outcome, so they will need to win just to live another week with an outside chance at making the playoffs. What do the Bears have to play for? Nothing other than the role of spoiler. The Seahawks O-line has been struggling and without a consistent rushing attack, it's hard for me to think this is a slam dunk play on the Seahawks. i tend to pick faves, but this is a game where I could possibly back the Bears. They've lost 9 straight, but take away all of their away games, and they're a .500 team. The Bears have O-line issues of their own, but the Bears somehow seem to hang with some of the better teams and lose admirably (Lions, Vikings, Packers) in some closely contested games. I lean Bears at +3.5 and will expect to get an earful from Sac.
I broke the curse!
Posted:
#121
Chargers announced that Dobbins will be active for tomorrow's game against the Patriots.
Gus Edwards is Out.
Forecast is rain in Foxborough. Lots of running to be expected, but I don't think the Chargers will give Dobbins his full load. With Edwards out, it means Kimani Vidal and Hassan Haskins will get a good share of carries.
Lean Chargers -4 because of the coveted 5th seed up for grabs. If the Steelers lose next week, and the Chargers win out, they'll face the Texas in Rd 1. That would be enough to inspire me to play hard. With next week's opponent being the Raiders, it also means they might be able to rest starters -- or do so at halftime if the Chargers have a comfortable lead. (Personally, I wouldn't even let up.)
Posted:
#123
Quote Originally Posted by Biscuiteater1:
@iConsciousness There is a talent there to come up with that much info on Raiders / Saints Bolts by 3 would be fine by me.
@iConsciousness There is a talent there to come up with that much info on Raiders / Saints Bolts by 3 would be fine by me.
Ha! Yeah, I started rambling there like I was back in high school and trying to meet a word count for an essay. Must. Add. Filler.
Bolts by 3 and due to limiting snaps for starters would be mighty fine with me. (The ultimate scenario.)
Posted:
#125
Quote Originally Posted by undermysac:
Vikings ML(-120) *2.00/1.67 Missed Vikings +1, played this one like shit. It may even go back the other way again, I don't know. Stupid 2 pt middle and one side is -120
Vikings ML(-120) *2.00/1.67 Missed Vikings +1, played this one like shit. It may even go back the other way again, I don't know. Stupid 2 pt middle and one side is -120
I know you're trying to widen the middle you're going for, but money is money. In my opinion, the Vikings win this outright and would grab this for sure up to -2. If, and when, I post plays this week this will be one of them. As mentioned in one of your threads (but bringing it up for others to see), I already have the Vikings at +1 (although I didn't go as big as I would have liked). I will grab them at -1 as well.
Vikings at home, with both teams still jockeying for seeding. Should be a close game either way (barring any significant injuries that would alter the game). This game is a great teaser addition too.
Hot Forum Topics
