
|
section 371
NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 11:40 AM
|

|

|

|
Saturday January 5, 2008
Washington 9-7 (Road: 4-4) 4:30pm
-3 1/2 Seattle 10-6 (Home: 7-1) NBC
-2 Jacksonville 11-5 (Road: 5-3) 8:00pm
Pittsburgh 10-6 (Home: 7-1) NBC
Sunday January 6, 2008
NY Giants 10-6 (Road: 7-1) 1:00pm ET
-3 Tampa Bay 9-7 (Home: 6-2) FOX
Tennessee 10-6 (Road: 5-3) 4:30pm ET
-9 San Diego 11-5 (Home: 7-1) CBS
I'm don't see how these games will be very
entertaining. But from a betting persepective it could be fun.
I think Seattle is a fraud and the Skins stink but you have to like the Skins from an emotional stand point. I'll take the Skins plus the 3 1/2.
I like the way the Jags have been playing lately. Fred Taylor has been amazing.
The Steelers are banged up and losing Parker has to hurt them. I'll take the Jags -2 in an ugly game.
I think the Viagiants game might be the hardest to handicap. Which Eli will show up? Can Garcia put some points up on the Viagiants defense. Eli plays better away from the Meadowlands. I'm leaning towards taking the Viagiants after there performance against the Pats. I'll take the Viagiants + 3.
Don't think you'll find to many people who think the Titans have any chance against the Bolts. The Bolts have been playing well and I'm expecting them to continue the trend and blow out the Titans. I'll lay the points and take the Bolts in a blow out.
|

|
|

|

|
bassiladelph
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 12:01 PM
|

|

|

|
Seattle is a fraud, but playing at Seattle is a tough task. Of course, the Redskins are on a run and have been playing every game like a playoff game since 3 weeks ago, so I'd pick the Skins.
Jags are the team no one wants to face, and if I had to pick who would have the best chance of running through NE/Indy, it'd be them.
The Giants, I think, are done. They gave just about everything they had in losing to the Pats, and unless moral victories count (and they absolutely stunk it up in the last quarter), a rested TB squad takes it to them.
SD? Norv Turner's still the coach, so tread lightly. They'll win, but does anyone believe in this team?
|

|
|

|

|
f-dallas
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 12:29 PM
|

|

|

|
The Jags should theoretically be the "bet the farm" pick this week.
They beat the Steelers at home by a TD about a month ago and the only thing that has changed since then is the Steelers lost Willie Parker.
Don't forget that in that last game the Steelers put up 15 meaningless points in the 4th quarter, too.
|

|
|

|

|
TheTalon
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 1:00 PM
|

|

|

|
The Steelers also lost one of their Tackles.
|

|
|

|

|
bassiladelph
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 2:08 PM
|

|

|

|
Looking at it further, they've lost 3 out of their last 4 games, and the only game they won was against a bad opponent, and even then the score was close going into the 3rd.
Just seems like they're falling apart, and they've been that way ever since losing to NE.
|

|
|

|

|
Dino727
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/2/2008 2:10 PM
|

|

|

|
I predict that none of this week's winners win next week. That said:
Skins
Tampa
Jax
San Diego
|

|
|

|

|
birds85
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 1:52 AM
|

|

|

|
I agree, at face value matchups do not seem as intriguing as past wild card weekends (maybe because we have no vested interest). That being said, I also agree, vegas could easily make me have some vested interest. So here we go...no whammy, no whammy, no whammy...stop!
Washington 21 (cover)
Seattle 24
Jacksonville 16 (cover)
Pittsburgh 13
NY Giants 20
Tampa Bay 17 (push)
Tennessee 13
San Diego 31 (cover)
*Unless Titans defense totally controls this game (unlikely, Tomlinson plays for SD in case you didn't know) there is no way that Chargers don't win by double figures!
|

|
|

|

|
birds85
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 2:11 AM
|

|

|

|
Sorry, meant...
NY Giants 20 (cover)
Tampa Bay 17
|

|
|

|

|
Thongdar
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 9:11 AM
|

|

|

|
Skins to cover but lose.
Jags
Vagiants
Chargers
Kind of hope the Skins win, so I can root for them over Dallas and GB over the Vagiants. Otherwise I have to root for the blimp, and will have trouble keeping lunch down listening to Buck and Aikman blow Romo and Sheli all day.
"I predict that none of this week's winners win next week."
I dunno Dino. I was gonna go the other way and say at least one road team will win next week. You might be right about NE, but the Chargers can give Indy fits, and I think the NFC is a crapshoot. I was thinking of betting the underdog against GB, then the ranch on New England, and then increased bets on the dogs on Sunday, depending how I'm doing.
|

|
|

|

|
Tattoo
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 11:16 AM
|

|

|

|
Wow Dino I predict that none of this week's winners win next week. That said:
You really don't think the Jags have any shot?!? I think they are playing as well as any team right now and my early prediction for the SB is the Jags and GB...
|

|
|

|

|
Dino727
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 11:36 AM
|

|

|

|
I didn't say they had "no shot." But my prediction stands. Championship games will be Pats/Colts and Pack/Girls.
I would LOVE to be wrong and I think the Jags are a team that COULD beat NE.
|

|
|

|

|
Seth in 736
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/3/2008 11:57 AM
|

|

|

|
more than any year i can recall, its the year to pick all the chalk.
|

|
|

|

|
aksdude
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/6/2008 10:09 PM
|

|

|

|
Not entirely unwatchable, except for the Redskins I suppose. The Pittsburgh game turned out to be pretty good. San Diego/Tennesse and Vagiants/Bucs weren't really much, but they were better than I thought they would be.
That leaves:
Green Bay vs. Seahawks - GB SHOULD win this.
Dallas vs. New York - I won't watch a snap, but I can't see the cowturds losing.
New England vs. Jacksonville - I think this could be very interesting. I personally would love to see the Patriots get beat, but I have a feeling they are just too much for the Jags.
Indianapolis vs. San Diego - The Colts SHOULD run away with this one.
|

|
|

|

|
f-dallas
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 8:27 AM
|

|

|

|
I think NE is going to be WAY too much for the Jags based on how the Jags played Saturday.
Watching the Chargers/Titans game yesterday (and I know the Titans D is pretty damn good), what is it about LT that makes him better than Westbrook at this point?
They are completely different players in completely different offenses. I'm also not trying to slam LT, who has had a much more productive career in total.
However, if you were starting a team right now (and not a fantasy team that rewards TDs LT gets fed in that offense), is there a reason you'd choose LT over Westbrook?
|

|
|

|

|
KeithByars
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 9:25 AM
|

|

|

|
Durability
|

|
|

|

|
section 371
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 9:51 AM
|

|

|

|
1/12 4:30 PM
Seattle
Green Bay -8.5
1/12 8:00 PM
Jacksonville
New England -11.5
1/13 1:00 PM
San Diego
Indianapolis -8.5
1/13 4:30 PM
New York
Dallas -7.5
Well the wild card games IMO were mostly boring excpet maybe for the Jags game.
Doesn't look like any of this past weeks winners are getting any respect from Vegas this week.
The Jags spread against the Steelers was
-2 and then changed right before kick off to -3. So if you bet the Jags early you pushed if you bet the Jags late you got Fd.
The line on the Titans / Bolts was another f job. The early line was Bolts -10 then about an hour before kick off the line went to -11. So betting late got you a push. I was hoping for another Bolts TD that never came.
The only line I like for this weeks games early is the Viagiants. The seem to play well on the road and I'd take the 7.5 points. I think they can win outright if Eli doesn't play with his head in his ass.
|

|
|

|

|
SeeZakRun
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:22 AM
|

|

|

|
I'd say the Colts look like the easiest pick of the week but I'm not a sports gambling man.
|

|
|

|

|
f-dallas
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:45 AM
|

|

|

|
Durability
Fair, but we're talking about 2 games missed by Westbrook in the last 2 full years.
He only missed 1 game due to injury in 2004, 1 game in 2003, 1 game in 2002.
LT is definitely freakishly durable, but Westbrook has only suffered 1 injury that caused him to miss multiple games in 1 football season over his 6 year career.
Would you take LT over Westbrook for that 1 game per year advantage? It's fine if you would, but I'd be willing to bet Westbrook is among the league's most durable backs over the past 2 years.
|

|
|

|

|
NotoriousEAG
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:51 AM
|

|

|

|
FD you have to count the playoff games he's missed as well.
|

|
|

|

|
KeithByars
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:52 AM
|

|

|

|
Hey, I tried defending Westbrook's durability last year, only to be told by you he wasn't.
|

|
|

|

|
bassiladelph
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:53 AM
|

|

|

|
Well, NOW he is, but durability over a small sample size isn't exactly a fair way to use it, is it?
|

|
|

|

|
bassiladelph
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:54 AM
|

|

|

|
That was to FD.
|

|
|

|

|
bassiladelph
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:54 AM
|

|

|

|
Ugh, this is what I get for not reading. Disregard.
|

|
|

|

|
f-dallas
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:58 AM
|

|

|

|
FD you have to count the playoff games he's missed as well.
He missed 2 playoff games in 2003. I just didn't think it was right to count them given LT had led his team to a 4-12 record. It would be like counting a sprained ankle LT suffered in April.
|

|
|

|

|
KeithByars
RE: NFL Playoffs
|

|
Reply
|

|
1/7/2008 10:58 AM
|

|

|

|
He missed more than one game in 2004 b/c of injury, too
|

|
|

|
|
|