[QUOTE=Fezzik;46926]
It sucks that we lost our big NFL bets, but virtually all of them this year have been coinflips that we have gotten unlucky in ..........it's now like we are seeing the plays badly.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this rationale. You explain that you're not seeing the plays badly because they were coinflips with unlucky results? Isn't the fact that big plays end up being "coinflips" concerning at all? I'm assuming that big plays are big for a reason, not that we're simply hoping to be on the good side of variance. Even if the 4-unit coinflips went 4-0 instead of 0-4, I would hope that there would be some kind of re-evaluation because the results would not be attributable to being on the right side. The mere fact that these plays turned on coinflips might indicate there was no right side in each game--regardless of actual outcome--let alone worthy of 4-weight status.
Further, are we even sure the big plays were actually coinflips? I only remember 3 of the 4 four-weight plays. Cin vs SF was probably a coinflip as the outcome was determined very late. Den vs Oak in Week 1 didn't seem to be a toss-up as Oak jumped out to a 16-3 halftime lead as 3-pt dogs and was in the Den backfield all day, sacking Orton 5 times (vs 1 for Den) and outgaining Oak on the ground 190-38. The final score made the game look closer than it was due to a 90-yd punt return for TD and conservative gameplan late for Oak.
Stl vs Was was similar, getting 4 pts but being down 17-0 until the 4th quarter, with Stl scoring their only TD with under 6 mins left in the game. Eventually losing 17-10, this was also deceiving as Stl was outgained 196-45 on the ground as well as through the air, and sacked 7 times (vs 0 for Was).
The point I'm trying to make is not that the picks lost. Heck, I know better than anyone what it's like to step out on a game that loses in blowout fashion. But the key is what you take away from those losses. When those things happen, there has to be some reassessment of what went wrong, the methodology used, etc. I think that's what canoehead was questioning when he started the "Fezzik's approach" thread, which is a valid concern. Of course the defenders couldn't see beyond their loyalty, saying he shouldn't be betting if he can't take the losses, which misses the point entirely and does nothing to better anyone's chance of success going forward.
I think there's value in Fezzik's plays and the discourse in this forum generally; I wouldn't be subscribing otherwise. But chalking up a winless 4-unit record to randomness and bad bounces in a thread created to reassure paying members is tough for me to swallow. Good luck this weekend.
