Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
um...didn't realize that any book allowed you to buy points as part of a parlay.
|
Axeman99 | 14 |
|
|
GL, mate.
I also like the Ravens TT over 21.5
|
TREE88 | 45 |
|
|
true statement. I could never bring myself to take an under of 41 in a playoff game. Just cant do it.
|
MoneyShot | 4 |
|
|
but....
there seems to be more Giant love on covers....
|
NORCALPLAYA | 11 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by jroc1247: Watch the 9ners/Gmen replay week 10. You will see that Gmen were able to break off several nice runs with Jacobs and Ware. I think Bradshaw didn't even play that game and the G-men were still missing some key players on D. I know Gore didn't play but Hunter in my eyes isnt that much of a drop off he is a very explosive back. The G-men had a serious chance to tie that game and possibly pull out a win. 49ners secondary had a hard time covering down the stretch. I see Eli making some big plays on the outside. G-Men 27-24 I think both teams are playing at a higher level than they were back then. i def agree that game could have gone either way and the score doesn't fairly depict what actual went on. I am a 49er fan so will be rooting for my team but I certainly can't fault anyone for betting the giants. The one thing I find interesting is that when people are picking the score, they almost always have both teams scoring in the 20s, yet the total is only 41....
|
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by daysbtwin: I agree man. I was being sarcastic lol...my bad. I'm dumb. haha
|
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by numbersbuster: Yeah, I really dig your avatar too. A spork. Real clever. Anyway, I never said that forcing turnovers was not caused by defense. Duh. I was merely stating how the Niners let the Saints march up and down the field on them. Thanks for the info though, I had no idea. The team that wins the turnover battle generally wins the game. Huh. Thanks for the insight. Now go spork yourself. I was actually being serious about your avatar. That wasn't me being sarcastic. You are welcome re: the insight. Because clearly you needed someone to spell it out for you. I should thank you as well though, because I had no clue that the Saints were moving the ball and scoring points against the 49ers. You, sir, are a genius. Just so I understand...you basically just conceded that the 49ers defense caused turnovers, and that turnovers win ball games. Ergo, the 49ers defense won the game. haha, and I'm done with you but don't worry, before I go I'll go ahead and call the wahhhmbulance to come and pick you up, peasant. |
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by daysbtwin: All of those great defenses over the years who did nothing but force turnovers are lucky their opponents kept throwing interceptions and kept fumbling the ball wow. 2 things 1. The 49ers defense does way more than just force turnovers (pass rush, sacks, great against the run, PIERRE THOMAS IS LIKELY DEAD) 2. The Saints won the Super Bowl with a defense that was entirely reliant upon turning over their opponents. |
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
First and foremost, I gotta give you props...your avatar is awesome.
Now on to the topic of your logic, retard. :D "So you are relying on the Giants turnovers to bail out the 49ers again" Why do people keep acting like a defense has nothing to do with causing turnovers...as if it just happens, naturally. I guess it must just be a coincidence that the 49ers have consistently forced turnovers all year long. I suppose they just happen to catch every single team they play on off-days, right? I will admit that the Giants defense is very tough to play against and they match up very well against the 49ers, because they get a good pass rush with fewer rushers and then can drop back in coverage. So yes, the Giants defense has been playing very well... Also, my initial response was not at all saying that the 49ers would win against the Giants. I have no idea who will win that game and it could easily be the Giants. I was responding to your faulty logic about how the 49ers defense played against the Saints. For some reason you took my post as an endorsement for the 9ers winning against the Giants even though I never mentioned them. Probably because of your R-tardedness.
|
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by numbersbuster: How good was that SF defense when Drew Brees was passing for 400+ on them last week, and it took a miracle for Alex Smith to pull them out? This is a retarded comment. You do realize that the defense forced multiple turnovers and TOOK POINTS OFF THE BOARD. Furthermore, the Saints were never able to establish a running game. Why do you think the 49ers even had 1:30 on the clock remaining to make that final drive? Without the way the 49ers defense played, the 49ers would not have won. It is as simple as that. Stats don't tell the entire story. The 49ers bend but don't break defense is what allowed the 9ers to beat one of the most explosive offenses we've seen in decades.
|
Zeus10 | 26 |
|
|
I know that the info from wagerline is hardly reliable but I do find it a bit odd that the O/U opened at 45...60% appears to be on the over and the total dropped to 41.5.
|
spork | 2 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by gales: spork - i think the ravens , assuming no multiple turnovers , should eaisly be in the high 20's low 30's i see a team totla of 21.5 posted for the ravens , i think this is the safest play on the board flacco will be able to get the ball down the field vs this pourous defense and he s/b able to do it on multiple occasions look at two games in dec for your clues - miami and washington if rex grossman and matt moore can both get there teams to 24 and 27 points each (grossman really got the skins into the 30's , but the refs called pi on s moss and took a td off the board that would have sent the game to ot) ,flacco s/b able to get the ravens to around a minimum of 25 points, possible more i'm sure the pats will score , but , maybe they only get to low 20's and the total doesn't get over 50 to me ravens over 21.5 is manna from heaven vs the worst defense in the league cheers! Though at the same time, this Pats defense doesn't seem exactly like the one that finished the regular season. That said, I've done quite well in the team total dept the past couple weeks (truth be told, it has been one of the only areas in which I've been on). The only problem I have with the team totals is that the value I'm getting via my book isn't great. right now $400 would pay $330 for the team total. Of course, you can't buy down team totals...so 21.5 with high juice is a tough one for me to play. This is why I'm really looking to just go with the total game over.
|
spork | 10 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by The.Ice.Man: Question : Do you like the under in the S.F. game ?.... because if you do, only twice in the last 38 C.C. games have both played under in same year !.... something to think on . G.L.to you. Thanks man. Personally, i don't like the under in the SF game. I think Vegas did a great job setting that total. I know everyone always thinks that in bad weather, take the under but I don't subscribe to that philosophy. I could easily see a situation with short-fields, a pick 6, missed tackles etc. Also...42 points is really low, IMO. 23-20 is how I would expect it to end up anyway...so I really don't understand all the love for the under. I wouldn't touch it with a long stick.
|
spork | 10 |
|
|
At first glance, I absolutely loved the over here. (O50)
But then after going through some of the past games that each team played I have become a bit concerned. I thought this would sail over but based on the infrequency with which Baltimore scores over the mid 20s, I could see it coming down as either just over or just under. I still lean over. I will definitely not be playing the under here, so it is going to be either Over or no play. What do you guys think?
|
spork | 10 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by timdogs17: Poolio- Giants win and dominate this mother Fucking game. Man, hate seeing you go down like this Sometimes a bit over confident. |
poolman11 | 3 |
|
|
Is this guy retarded?
|
MrBogey | 16 |
|
|
You are a moron.
|
dabuckster | 17 |
|
|
2-0
hooray.
|
spork | 5 |
|
|
I kinda expect what happened to the Patriots a couple years ago vs. Ravens. I think that the Ravens might get up by like 21pts before half-time...which would be devastating for the under.
|
MoPinkie | 16 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by SwishSwish1234: The Saints had a gazillion turnovers and the 49ers won it with a td in the dying seconds of the game hmmm interesting, says a lot about how the 49ers will fare against the Giants or Packers next week. This is a pretty retarded statement. I don't know whether you watched the game at all but the first turnover took place because the 49er almost killed pierre thomas with a hit. Literally crushed him and he dropped the ball. That isn't a turnover as much as it was a "YOU GOT KNOCKED THe FUCK OUT." Sure, there was a muff punt/kickoff in there someplace but don't act like the 49ers were just handed turnovers. They worked for them and TOOK them....the way they have all season. And as for how the game was won, yes I agree that it could have easily been a Saints victory, but the fact that the 49ers won a game with Alex Smith leading 2 drives in the final 6 minutes for TDs, is huge. Is Smith still more of a game manager than a playmaking QB, sure, but he stepped up big time. And furthermore, scoring 36 pts should indicate that they don't have to just kick FGs and make sure their opponents score less than 17 pts a game to win. As for how they will fair next week, well obviously they'd do better at home against the Giants than on the road vs. the Packers. I would expect them to beat the Giants but lose to the Packers. I home I'm wrong, as they are my team, but even if they lose in the NFC championship game, it doesn't minimize what they did against the Saints.
|
wonwiththehook | 9 |
|
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.