Bears vs Vikings

[nightmarefish]

Over 44 in this game seems too easy. Am I missing something here?

[nightmarefish]

I guess I was.

[lewfather]

Do you watch football? Not trolling just curious.

[nightmarefish]

Tons. Are you saying you would have bet the under?

[Hockey Guy]

Tons. Are you saying you would have bet the under?

No, I think he's saying it's an unbelievably standard O/U line.

[nightmarefish]

Didn't really seem standard with these two defenses. The Bears give up close to 30 points a game and the Vikings scored over 30 in 3 of the last 4, plus just gave up 37 to Miami. This was by far the lowest scoring game the Bears have played all year. Anyway, I was obviously wrong.

[Hockey Guy]

Didn't really seem standard with these two defenses. The Bears give up close to 30 points a game and the Vikings scored over 30 in 3 of the last 4, plus just gave up 37 to Miami. This was by far the lowest scoring game the Bears have played all year. Anyway, I was obviously wrong.

2 teams with nothing to play for, Jay Cutler under center for Chicago. No sense going too hard since the coaches, Trestman for sure, will be gone at season's end. Seems pretty standard to me.

[lewfather]

Didn't really seem standard with these two defenses. The Bears give up close to 30 points a game and the Vikings scored over 30 in 3 of the last 4, plus just gave up 37 to Miami. This was by far the lowest scoring game the Bears have played all year. Anyway, I was obviously wrong.

2 teams with nothing to play for, Jay Cutler under center for Chicago. No sense going too hard since the coaches, Trestman for sure, will be gone at season's end. Seems pretty standard to me.

[nightmarefish]

Didn't really seem standard with these two defenses. The Bears give up close to 30 points a game and the Vikings scored over 30 in 3 of the last 4, plus just gave up 37 to Miami. This was by far the lowest scoring game the Bears have played all year. Anyway, I was obviously wrong.

2 teams with nothing to play for, Jay Cutler under center for Chicago. No sense going too hard since the coaches, Trestman for sure, will be gone at season's end. Seems pretty standard to me.

Interesting you say that, I would think nothing to play for would make the defenses play even worse. You really think the odds makers took "nothing to play for" into consideration and dropped the line? Miami and the Jets had nothing to play for in Ryan's last game and the two teams went ape shit.

[lewfather]

2 teams with nothing to play for, Jay Cutler under center for Chicago. No sense going too hard since the coaches, Trestman for sure, will be gone at season's end. Seems pretty standard to me.

I should probably stop trying to defend my horrible sports bet but my autism won't allow it.

[nightmarefish]

I always love these threads where someone makes a pick and the retards come in after the game is over and tell the original poster how bad the pick was. Silly faggots. The only explanation I've heard as to why it's a bad pick is that they had nothing to play for which obviously can work out either way and I don't think it effected the line. Of course I could be wrong, please someone post a link with some data showing games are lower scoring when both teams have nothing to play for.

[lewfather]

I probably should have just posted my pick in the sports wagering thread instead of creating a whole new thread just for this one shitty losing sports pick that i lit some money on fire over.

i agree bro

[nightmarefish]

Still no insight as to why it was such a bad pick? Shocking.....

[lewfather]

Still no insight as to why it was such a bad pick? Shocking.....

[lewfather]

Over 44 in this game seems too easy. Am I missing something here?

This is how you kick the festivities off for this fucking fail pick/thread and now you're pissed that you're getting clowned and want to defend the pick? now you want REASONS why this was awful and if you don't get your way were just alllll faggots.



i just, i cant even.

[nightmarefish]

Over 44 in this game seems too easy. Am I missing something here?

This is how you kick the festivities off for this fucking fail pick/thread and now you're pissed that you're getting clowned and want to defend the pick? now you want REASONS why this was awful and if you don't get your way were just alllll faggots.



i just, i cant even.

It's funny when I asked if I was missing something you didn't have anything to say. I already said I was obviously wrong and asked if anyone could figure out why. Then you came in and fagged up the thread. Pretty much sums it up.

I'm ok with being wrong, I just asked if anyone really thought it would be the under and why. All you could do is be the faggot that you are.

[lewfather]

Would it have been so hard to post this in the sports wagering thread? And ohhh ya, didnt hockey guy already explain to you why this was a dumb bet? Fuck. You know what, you win. It was a great bet man, just got a little unlucky.

[nightmarefish]

Would it have been so hard to post this in the sports wagering thread? And ohhh ya, didnt hockey guy already explain to you why this was a dumb bet? Fuck. You know what, you win. It was a great bet man, just got a little unlucky.

So you're trolling because it's in the wrong thread? Makes senses. Anyway, I appreciate hockey guy giving me his insight I just don't think that had an effect on the opening line. Once again, I could be wrong, please direct me to some data that says meaningless games are low scoring.

[lewfather]

I liked your comparison of the MIA/Vikes game, because playing in Miami is a lot like playing outdoors in Minnesota in the winter.

like verrry similar

great analysis

what else you working with?

[lewfather]

Why is it hockeyguys responsibility to find data on low scoring games for you? Is there some sort of fine print in PFA's TOS that im missing? You're the dumbass who bet and lost his money on this game, you do the fucking research.

jesus christ