1 Charlie J NFL Total

Fezzik rolled what, 5-1-1 on CFB totals on Sat, and you flame him for ONE stinking NFL loser? Wtf???

Willie Parker is awful. Steelers have no ground game unless Mendenhall can pick up slack and Steelers brass does not like him. Like the Bungles next week,line should go up.

[QUOTE=blackout;3277]Willie Parker is awful. Steelers have no ground game unless Mendenhall can pick up slack and Steelers brass does not like him. Like the Bungles next week,line should go up.[/QUOTE] Steelers O Line looked very slow in person, slow and fat. But remember that the sod for that game was laid 5 days prior so that could have had a lot to do with it. Bears run blocking just as bad. Let's give both D line's a little credit.

[QUOTE=RealWorldSports;3271]Nice first and only post. TD drives in this "defensive struggle" of 92, 97, 69,and 72 yards. Anthony, if the purpose of this board is to avoid the sludge that weighs down other forums shouldn't this "gentleman" be refunded his money and sent on his way. There's plenty of what he's looking to participate in elsewhere on the interwebs. Or better, maybe you can force this guy to book Charlie's action.[/QUOTE] The rules of the board state that it's OK to "argue points or even challenge expertise." Golfne12 made a point. I don't think it was excessive (yes, the NOAA comment was unecessary) and it's one post. Also, there was ample and good rebuttal. I'll add that Charlie's picks have been very good and this one proved to have anything but a "low chance of covering."

Apology to the Board Wow, I had no idea my comments would spark such a strong reaction. In retrospect, I agree with the other posters that I was out of line and I apologize to anyone who took umbrage at my comments especially Fezzik and Charlie J. And even though Pitts/Chi UNDER was my top (and only) play of the day, it was a poor way to gloat at the expense of others who may have had the other side. I was wrong. It won't happen again. Regarding the NOAA comment, I am a meteorologist by training and I actually do use their data throughout the football season. I do my own handicapping and wager ONLY on poor weather games (i.e. games where I'm convinced that the upcoming weather system will impact the region in question at gametime). That affords me about 30-50 games per year maximum and I'm much busier in the fall than I am now. There is, of course, a lot of uncertainty as I wager as early in the week as I can and therefore compete primarily with the LVSC, other linesmakers, and possibly some other guys who study weather patterns too. Unfortunately I haven't been able to identify that subset of individuals as there isn't a division of the AMS concerned with football handicapping. In my experience regarding poor weather football, a solid running game (and solid running defense) is immensely more important than a passing offense/defense. Lean strongly to teams who dominate the running game (one such strong variable is the size of their offensive line compared to their opponents). This is very apparent in poor weather college games (and is an amazing angle (but don't tell anyone). It is not as much so in the pros (where everyone has size). But no matter what, teams who can't run the ball are destined to struggle in poor weather. Good luck in your endeavors.

Would love to hear some of your thoughts on the weather early in the week after you bet the games you want...

Golfne12, very cool response. Thank you.

Weather weekend? Seems like an ideal weekend for our resident meteorologist to chime in, doesn't it? [QUOTE=Golfne12;3283]Wow, I had no idea my comments would spark such a strong reaction. In retrospect, I agree with the other posters that I was out of line and I apologize to anyone who took umbrage at my comments especially Fezzik and Charlie J. And even though Pitts/Chi UNDER was my top (and only) play of the day, it was a poor way to gloat at the expense of others who may have had the other side. I was wrong. It won't happen again. Regarding the NOAA comment, I am a meteorologist by training and I actually do use their data throughout the football season. I do my own handicapping and wager ONLY on poor weather games (i.e. games where I'm convinced that the upcoming weather system will impact the region in question at gametime). That affords me about 30-50 games per year maximum and I'm much busier in the fall than I am now. There is, of course, a lot of uncertainty as I wager as early in the week as I can and therefore compete primarily with the LVSC, other linesmakers, and possibly some other guys who study weather patterns too. Unfortunately I haven't been able to identify that subset of individuals as there isn't a division of the AMS concerned with football handicapping. In my experience regarding poor weather football, a solid running game (and solid running defense) is immensely more important than a passing offense/defense. Lean strongly to teams who dominate the running game (one such strong variable is the size of their offensive line compared to their opponents). This is very apparent in poor weather college games (and is an amazing angle (but don't tell anyone). It is not as much so in the pros (where everyone has size). But no matter what, teams who can't run the ball are destined to struggle in poor weather. Good luck in your endeavors.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RealWorldSports;3629]Seems like an ideal weekend for our resident meteorologist to chime in, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] maybe tomorrow after all the dust (or rain) has settled....

Bet on good running teams and teams with good running defenses, "but don't tell anyone"