NFL week 9

[moo321]

I know these are both square bets, but I like New England -4.5 at Indianapolis, and the over at 57. The Patriots tend to play well against the Colts, and they just put up 52 against an allegedly good secondary (I thought they were a little over-rated, but not that over-rated). New England is just scary, and even though the Colts are ridiculously good, New England is much better.

Over 57 is high, but these are clearly the 2 best offenses in football, and the Patriots haven't tended to run the ball when ahead late in games. Don't get too excited though, because a lot of teams tend to be more conservative in big games.

[toastblows]

That is going to be a high scoring game (pats/ind). 57 might not be that bad even for over/under.

I like seattle and cleveland at 47 over/under. 2 huge offenses with derek anderson coming out of no where...and releatively no cleveland defense....seattle will be huge. Seattle D is spotty, this may be my only concern, if they show up and shut down the cleveland O

Close call on both, i think im "fake taking" cle/sea for over 47.

[moo321]

The over/under on Indy/NE moved to 56.5, so I'm adding another unit at that price.

I also like the Packers at Kansas City +126. How is a 6-1 team with a strong passing attack and a great defense an underdog to a really bad Kansas City team? Kansas City has an absolutely terribly awful offense. Their defense isn't anything special. Packers are clearly better; the only reason for this line is that Kansas City is at home and they're on a winning streak against Cincinnati and Oakland (two other awful teams).

Detroit vs. Denver -3. Detroit is a much better team at home than on the road (as are a lot of pass-heavy teams). They're finally running the ball, at least a little bit. And you know what else, Detroit LEADS THE LEAGUE in takeaways! Detroit actually has a turnover defense?! Jon Kitna just said in an interview that his goal this year is to win the Super Bowl; this guy, and this franchise, are serious, and they are gonna come out playing.

[moo321]

Again, I know this isn't NFL, but I also follow the Buckeyes, and I'll bet them if I like the line. Ohio State vs. Wisconsin -700. Ohio Stadium is maybe the most favorable home turf in college football. Ohio State has arguably the best running game and defense (7.5 points per game) in the country, and a very strong deep passing game with good receivers. Ohio State was a modest favorite at Penn State and absolutely ran them over. The spread isn't bad, either at -15; I'd put it at 17.5.

[toastblows]

Packers +126....who the hell wouldnt take that. did farve die? KC sux, and so does oakland and cincy, i think that is a good pick. Im sticking with my over on SEA/CLE as well.

[moo321]

Line moved on OSU-Wisconsin, to -800, -16. Looks like we got it right... Anyone who wants to bet it now, I'd take the spread.

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by moo321

The over/under on Indy/NE moved to 56.5, so I'm adding another unit at that price.

I also like the Packers at Kansas City +126. How is a 6-1 team with a strong passing attack and a great defense an underdog to a really bad Kansas City team? Kansas City has an absolutely terribly awful offense. Their defense isn't anything special. Packers are clearly better; the only reason for this line is that Kansas City is at home and they're on a winning streak against Cincinnati and Oakland (two other awful teams).

Detroit vs. Denver -3. Detroit is a much better team at home than on the road (as are a lot of pass-heavy teams). They're finally running the ball, at least a little bit. And you know what else, Detroit LEADS THE LEAGUE in takeaways! Detroit actually has a turnover defense?! Jon Kitna just said in an interview that his goal this year is to win the Super Bowl; this guy, and this franchise, are serious, and they are gonna come out playing.

Originally Posted by toastblows

Packers +126....who the hell wouldnt take that. did farve die? KC sux, and so does oakland and cincy, i think that is a good pick. Im sticking with my over on SEA/CLE as well.

is this called the moneyline? that means for every $100 you want to win, you have to bet $126 on the packers? and this is straight up right? that sounds good to me, as the packers will easily win.. of course this bet sucks if your betting on the chiefs to win, as $100 to win $126 isnt much of a jackpot since that team has like a 1 in 3 chance of winning

[moo321]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

is this called the moneyline? that means for every $100 you want to win, you have to bet $126 on the packers? and this is straight up right? that sounds good to me, as the packers will easily win.. of course this bet sucks if your betting on the chiefs to win, as $100 to win $126 isnt much of a jackpot since that team has like a 1 in 3 chance of winning

No, +126 means for every $100 you bet you WIN $126. Packers are underdogs (somehow).

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

Originally Posted by moo321

No, +126 means for every $100 you bet you WIN $126. Packers are underdogs (somehow).

how do you know which team they are refering to? for instance, a moneyline of 126 means you have to bet 126 to win 100 for which team? do you have to look at the spread to find out who is the underdog, and does the moneyline always refers to the underdog, thus always over 100?

[AsparaChief]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

how do you know which team they are refering to? for instance, a moneyline of 126 means you have to bet 126 to win 100 for which team? do you have to look at the spread to find out who is the underdog, and does the moneyline always refers to the underdog, thus always over 100?

Each team will have their own moneyline. Usually the favorite's moneyline will be negative (e.g. -150, meaning $100 bet will net you about $67) and the underdog's line will be positive.

Great picks again, Moo; I took your suggestion on GB and Detroit. Thanks and keep 'em coming, ha!