Playoff Lines (2nd round)
Michael Sager
Current Lines:
PIT -3.5 32.5 cle
SF -15.5 46.5 chi
DAL -10 43 gb
SD -3 46 mia
Mike Sager
sa...@interaccess.com
Dick Adams
BROWNS (+3-1/2) at the STEELERS [o/u: 32-1/2]
The Browns may have looked good against the Patriots, but
they are now playing the team that would be SuperBowl
Champion. The STEELERS should cover the spread and the
over-under (32-1/2) looks low on this one. TAKE THE STEELERS
as the CAROLINA FATS' LOCK OF THE WEEK.
DOLPHINS (+3) at the CHARGERS [o/u: 46]
The Dolphins have looked terrific in their last two games.
That's not something I can say for the Chargers. A Dolphins'
victory centers around Marino's ability to run the ground
game -- something with which he does have a great deal of
current experience. This is going to be one hell of a game!!
The line shouldn't be significant. If the Chargers win,
they'll cover. Problem is I don't like either team. What I
do like is the over-under of 46 points. As high as it is, I
expect the winner to run up 32-35 points. TAKE THE OVER.
DA BEARS (+15-1/2) at the NINERS [o/u: 46.5]
The question is not "Who is going to ?" but rather "How
big an offensive game is this going to be for the Niners?"
Da Bears' defense has looked good enough over the last two
games to cause me to believe that the Niners are not going
to cremate. Take DA BEARS (and get every point you can cause
you're going to need them) and think about taking the UNDER.
PACKERS (+10) at the BOYZ [o/u: 43]
1994 brought us the funeral of the once awesome Buffalo Bills.
The funeral for the Dallas Cowboys has been come so quickly
that many people didn't see it coming. Take the PACKERS as
the CAROLINA FATS' UPSET OF THE WEEK.
Last week 2-2. Got the NFC right and the AFC wrong.
Barry Small
: BROWNS (+3-1/2) at the STEELERS [o/u: 32-1/2]
: The Browns may have looked good against the Patriots, but
: they are now playing the team that would be SuperBowl
: Champion. The STEELERS should cover the spread and the
: over-under (32-1/2) looks low on this one. TAKE THE STEELERS
: as the CAROLINA FATS' LOCK OF THE WEEK.
If the Steelers are your lock of the week, then they should be favored by
the 3 1/2 points, not the Browns and the spread. But if you go strictly
by the over-under, then that's different. Just for the heck of it, I'd go
over.
: DOLPHINS (+3) at the CHARGERS [o/u: 46]
: The Dolphins have looked terrific in their last two games.
: That's not something I can say for the Chargers. A Dolphins'
: victory centers around Marino's ability to run the ground
: game -- something with which he does have a great deal of
: current experience. This is going to be one hell of a game!!
: The line shouldn't be significant. If the Chargers win,
: they'll cover. Problem is I don't like either team. What I
: do like is the over-under of 46 points. As high as it is, I
: expect the winner to run up 32-35 points. TAKE THE OVER.
Agreed.
: DA BEARS (+15-1/2) at the NINERS [o/u: 46.5]
: The question is not "Who is going to ?" but rather "How
: big an offensive game is this going to be for the Niners?"
: Da Bears' defense has looked good enough over the last two
: games to cause me to believe that the Niners are not going
: to cremate. Take DA BEARS (and get every point you can cause
: you're going to need them) and think about taking the UNDER.
Agreed.
: PACKERS (+10) at the BOYZ [o/u: 43]
: 1994 brought us the funeral of the once awesome Buffalo Bills.
: The funeral for the Dallas Cowboys has been come so quickly
: that many people didn't see it coming. Take the PACKERS as
: the CAROLINA FATS' UPSET OF THE WEEK.
I'm not sure, but I like your sendiments just the same.
-The Admeister
: Last week 2-2. Got the NFC right and the AFC wrong.
Dick Adams
> Dick Adams (rda...@ubmail.ubalt.edu) wrote:
> : BROWNS (+3-1/2) at the STEELERS [o/u: 32-1/2]
> : The Browns may have looked good against the Patriots, but
> : they are now playing the team that would be SuperBowl
> : Champion. The STEELERS should cover the spread and the
> : over-under (32-1/2) looks low on this one. TAKE THE STEELERS
> : as the CAROLINA FATS' LOCK OF THE WEEK.
>
> If the Steelers are your lock of the week, then they should be favored by
> the 3 1/2 points, not the Browns and the spread. But if you go strictly
> by the over-under, then that's different. Just for the heck of it, I'd go
> over.
I think you misread my post. The Steelers are favored by 3-1/2 and I am
suggesting that you take the over.
> : DOLPHINS (+3) at the CHARGERS [o/u: 46]
> : The Dolphins have looked terrific in their last two games.
> : That's not something I can say for the Chargers. A Dolphins'
> : victory centers around Marino's ability to run the ground
> : game -- something with which he does have a great deal of
> : current experience. This is going to be one hell of a game!!
> : The line shouldn't be significant. If the Chargers win,
> : they'll cover. Problem is I don't like either team. What I
> : do like is the over-under of 46 points. As high as it is, I
> : expect the winner to run up 32-35 points. TAKE THE OVER.
>
> Agreed.
Great to hear that we agree!!
> : DA BEARS (+15-1/2) at the NINERS [o/u: 46.5]
> : The question is not "Who is going to win?" but rather "How
> : big an offensive game is this going to be for the Niners?"
> : Da Bears' defense has looked good enough over the last two
> : games to cause me to believe that the Niners are not going
> : to cremate Da Bears. Take DA BEARS (and get every point
> : you can cause you're going to need them) and think about
> : taking the UNDER.
>
> Agreed.
This was not a difficult one. If I am wrong and the Niners bury
Da Bears, the Packers (or possibly the Boyz) will be dead meat!!
Of course, whoever palys the Steelers in Miami will be dead meat
too!!!
> : PACKERS (+10) at the BOYZ [o/u: 43]
> : 1994 brought us the funeral of the once awesome Buffalo Bills.
> : The funeral for the Dallas Cowboys has been come so quickly
> : that many people didn't see it coming. Take the PACKERS as
> : the CAROLINA FATS' UPSET OF THE WEEK.
>
> I'm not sure, but I like your sendiments just the same.
I'm not sure either, that's why the game is played and the score
is kept. Just the same, I like the Packers +10, but at +6-1/2 or
less, I'd pass on this one.
Carolina Fats
Barry Small
: reb...@gate.net (Barry Small) writes:
: > Dick Adams (rda...@ubmail.ubalt.edu) wrote:
: > : BROWNS (+3-1/2) at the STEELERS [o/u: 32-1/2]
: > : The Browns may have looked good against the Patriots, but
: > : they are now playing the team that would be SuperBowl
: > : Champion. The STEELERS should cover the spread and the
: > : over-under (32-1/2) looks low on this one. TAKE THE STEELERS
: > : as the CAROLINA FATS' LOCK OF THE WEEK.
: >
: > If the Steelers are your lock of the week, then they should be favored by
: > the 3 1/2 points, not the Browns and the spread. But if you go strictly
: > by the over-under, then that's different. Just for the heck of it, I'd go
: > over.
: I think you misread my post. The Steelers are favored by 3-1/2 and I am
: suggesting that you take the over.
Sorry about that. My mistake.
:
: > : DOLPHINS (+3) at the CHARGERS [o/u: 46]
Barry Small
: Bettors Beware!!!! These two guys don't have a clue. In fact,
: next week, take exactly the opposite of these and you'll fare
: pretty well. :)
Rational people, beware of arrogance when you come across it!!!! His
reply reeks of it.
Hmmm... go ahead. Take the opposite picks next week. It's sure easy to
gloat when you fare well and other folks don't, huh?
: Sorry guys, just could not resist, after y'all completely botched
: your picks this week.
Too bad you couldn't have begged to differ BEFORE the games took place.
But there were others who struggled against the spread; we weren't the
only ones. Your comments, AFTER the games took place, are ones a rational
person would interpret as mindless dribble. Your points would've been
valid, but you chose not to reply BEFORE the start of these games. Why?
You could have, nobody stopped you. Relay to me how, in your opinion, off
you think I am with my picks during the week. And if your observation
turns out to be accurate, I'd commend you on your insight.
But you didn't. Your intention is to take the childish route, and may I
infer that you did a helluva job of it.
: @@Ya,
: Mark N. (Who went a
respectible 3-1this week, Clev. being the loser I picked.)
**respectable**
Yes, right back @@Ya. Flame me for a trivial matter, and I'll bestow upon
you a slight dosage of your own medicine, chief.
-The Admeister, who had a lousy week ATS(1-3), but it's happened before,
and it'll happen again.
: >reb...@gate.net (Barry Small) writes:
: >> Dick Adams (rda...@ubmail.ubalt.edu) wrote:
: >> : DOLPHINS (+3) at the CHARGERS [o/u: 46]
Dick Adams
> Bettors Beware!!!! These two guys don't have a clue. In fact,
> next week, take exactly the opposite of these and you'll fare
> pretty well. :)
>
> your picks this week.
>
> Mark N. (Who went a respectible 3-1 this week,
Clev. being the loser I picked.)
Yes - I had a bad week 1-3. But you omitted my Lock of the Week which
was the Steelers over the Browns and the suggestion to take the OVER.
BTW: Where were your comments the week I went 9-2??
Dick
Mark=Novakosky%...@bangate.compaq.com
>Mark=Novakosky%HW=Stor%PCPD=H...@bangate.compaq.com wrote:
>: Bettors Beware!!!! These two guys don't have a clue. In fact,
>: next week, take exactly the opposite of these and you'll fare
>: pretty well. :)
>
>Rational people, beware of arrogance when you come across it!!!! His
>reply reeks of it.
Are you blind? Do you not see the smiley??? I guess a little good-natured
ribbing is too much for your thin skin.
>
>Hmmm... go ahead. Take the opposite picks next week. It's sure easy to
>gloat when you fare well and other folks don't, huh?
>
>: Sorry guys, just could not resist, after y'all completely botched
>: your picks this week.
>
>Too bad you couldn't have begged to differ BEFORE the games took place.
>But there were others who struggled against the spread; we weren't the
>only ones. Your comments, AFTER the games took place, are ones a rational
>person would interpret as mindless dribble. Your points would've been
>valid, but you chose not to reply BEFORE the start of these games. Why?
>You could have, nobody stopped you. Relay to me how, in your opinion, off
>you think I am with my picks during the week. And if your observation
>turns out to be accurate, I'd commend you on your insight.
My picks are documented in Ed's Pool. You will see my name when
Ed releases his results. My 3-1 week puts me at 6-2 for the playoffs.
>
>But you didn't. Your intention is to take the childish route, and may I
>infer that you did a helluva job of it.
My intention was to poke a little fun, again, notice the " :)"
If you are humor-impaired...too bad.
>
>: @@Ya,
>: Mark N. (Who went a
>respectible 3-1this week, Clev. being the loser I picked.)
>**respectable**
Oh no! Someone help me...the spelling police are coming to
take me away!
>
>Yes, right back @@Ya. Flame me for a trivial matter, and I'll bestow upon
>you a slight dosage of your own medicine, chief.
That's the difference between you and me, I'm not going to get upset
over anything written in here.
>
>-The Admeister, who had a lousy week ATS(1-3), but it's happened before,
>and it'll happen again.
I'm just curious, what is the meaning of "The Admeister"?
You started this a week or so ago, I believe, and I was just wondering the
signifigance (sp?).
@@Ya,
Mark N.
MNova...@bangate.compaq.com
How sweet?
DaBoys 3-Peat ! ! !