All Forums | NFL Betting

NFL WEEK 1 *****350-1 UNDERDOG ML PARLAY*****

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 4207
Posts: 45
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 26739
Posted: #26
no way you go 0-6

Green Bay +3  for me
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #27
green bay isn't beating seattle week one. they might win ten in a row after that though
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54462
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by VegasVandal:

no way you go 0-6

Green Bay +3  for me
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2011
Posts: 7891
Posted: #29
Quote Originally Posted by matty441204:


I don't get this position at all.  I said this in a different thread, but name one player on the colts that is better at his position than his counterpart on the Broncos.  Now, since you say they are an all around better team, you should be able to easily name 5....right?  I don't get the urge to fade the Broncos at home, in prime time, opening night, with Manning wanting revenge.  

Manning was the consensus top player in football last year, hands down.

DT > Wayne
Welker > Hilton
Sanders > Nicks
Ball > Richardson
Orange Julius >>> Fleener
Broncos O-line >>> Colts O-Line
D-Ware/Miller >>>>>>>>> Werner/Walden....aka who? 
Talib > Davis
Harris > Toler
Ward > Landry

Shall I go on?

PLUS they're at home.

PLEASE explain to me why you'd be so shocked if the Broncos won.

The offenses don't play each other, so why compare them to determine who will win the game?  How will each offense match up against the opposing defense is a much more tangible way to handicap a game.

I personally don't have an opinion on this one, just think that is a flawed way of thinking and can get you in trouble.

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54462
Posted: #30
Quote Originally Posted by matty441204:


I don't get this position at all.  I said this in a different thread, but name one player on the colts that is better at his position than his counterpart on the Broncos.  Now, since you say they are an all around better team, you should be able to easily name 5....right?  I don't get the urge to fade the Broncos at home, in prime time, opening night, with Manning wanting revenge.  

Manning was the consensus top player in football last year, hands down.

DT > Wayne
Welker > Hilton
Sanders > Nicks
Ball > Richardson
Orange Julius >>> Fleener
Broncos O-line >>> Colts O-Line
D-Ware/Miller >>>>>>>>> Werner/Walden....aka who? 
Talib > Davis
Harris > Toler
Ward > Landry

Shall I go on?

PLUS they're at home.

PLEASE explain to me why you'd be so shocked if the Broncos won.
They had the better offensive players across the board (except rb) in the SB. That didnt turn out so well.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 38
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:

They had the better offensive players across the board (except rb) in the SB. That didnt turn out so well.

Yeah, that's a nice comparison.  I wanna think you're smarter than that, and just being tongue in cheek, but in case you're not...


That's a HORRIBLE comparison, because:

1) Seahawk's D was WAY better than Denver's D last year, while the Colts D is no where near as good as the Broncos this year.

2) Broncos O-line was not healthy for the super bowl (and much of the reg. season too), but they are now with Clady back.

So, in summary, a great D beat a great O in the Superbowl.
A great O and a good/potentially great D will beat a good O and a bad D on 9/7 in Denver.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #32

Denver didn't have a good offense in the superbowl, it wasn't just the seahawks defense. that was domination in every aspect, especially seahawks special teams and offense

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54462
Posted: #33
Quote Originally Posted by matty441204:


Yeah, that's a nice comparison.  I wanna think you're smarter than that, and just being tongue in cheek, but in case you're not...


That's a HORRIBLE comparison, because:

1) Seahawk's D was WAY better than Denver's D last year, while the Colts D is no where near as good as the Broncos this year.

2) Broncos O-line was not healthy for the super bowl (and much of the reg. season too), but they are now with Clady back.

So, in summary, a great D beat a great O in the Superbowl.
A great O and a good/potentially great D will beat a good O and a bad D on 9/7 in Denver.
Cool. Best of luck to you sir.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 38
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:

Denver didn't have a good offense in the superbowl, it wasn't just the seahawks defense. that was domination in every aspect, especially seahawks special teams and offense


So the Seahawk's defense deserves less credit then, if they just stopped a poor offense from scoring, right?

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #35
Quote Originally Posted by matty441204:


So the Seahawk's defense deserves less credit then, if they just stopped a poor offense from scoring, right?

did u see Sherman wearing his champions hat before the game was over? they didn't need any stars to win that game, but they had TONS. I said EVERY ASPECT, not 'less credit'. Seahawks mindset is 'you aren't a champion until you defend it'. It's going to be a bloodbath
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #36
welker was already under the spotlight for cheap shotting and injuring that NE player, so he couldn't grease anyone
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 38
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:

 I said EVERY ASPECT, not 'less credit'. Seahawks mindset is 'you aren't a champion until you defend it'. It's going to be a bloodbath

You said "the Broncos didn't have a good offense in the superbowl."  That's at best a confused statement, and at worst an idiotic one.

 Are you saying the Broncos weren't a good offense last year?  Or are you saying their offense didn't look good against a good D?  Your statement didn't seem to be the same as either of those. But it sure sounded like you were saying Denver's offense was not very good, hence they did bad not because of a good Seattle D, but because they just weren't very good.  Hence, they would deserve less credit than they have received.

Either way, your subsequent comments have showed me a bit more of your level of understanding.  Seahawks are definitely gonna have a little bit of a fall off from last year. 


 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 38
Posted: #38
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:

welker was already under the spotlight for cheap shotting and injuring that NE player, so he couldn't grease anyone


And....you're an idiot.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by matty441204:


You said "the Broncos didn't have a good offense in the superbowl."  That's at best a confused statement, and at worst an idiotic one.

 Are you saying the Broncos weren't a good offense last year?  Or are you saying their offense didn't look good against a good D?  Your statement didn't seem to be the same as either of those. But it sure sounded like you were saying Denver's offense was not very good, hence they did bad not because of a good Seattle D, but because they just weren't very good.  Hence, they would deserve less credit than they have received.

Either way, your subsequent comments have showed me a bit more of your level of understanding.  Seahawks are definitely gonna have a little bit of a fall off from last year. 


1. I said in the superbowl seattle dominated every aspect of the game.

2. Your second sentence was that of a 6 year old and I still don't quite understand.

3. What don't you understand? He came across and illegaly blind-sided that guy and got away with it because he's wes welker

I added you so I could argue a bit but now I have realized you are brainless

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #40

So how do you think the denver offense was in the superbowl?

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54462
Posted: #41

Please, everyone.... STFU about last years SB!!!

 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 38
Posted: #42
Quote Originally Posted by Hawky:

So how do you think the denver offense was in the superbowl?


"Denver didn't have a good offense in the superbowl, it wasn't just the seahawks defense"

They had a very good offense in the superbowl, as they did all season.  In fact, they had probably one of the best offenses of all time.  They didn't play well, partly due to their own lack of execution, but in a large part due to SEA playing very good D.  You seem to be saying they weren't a good offense, and the reason they didn't score much had nothing to do with the SEA defense, yes?  You also don't seem to have the best grasp of the English language either though, so I dunno....
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2011
Posts: 30868
Posted: #43


Train 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #44
hey retard I don't think YOU have a good grip on the English language. what part of "IT WASN'T JUST THE SEATTLE DEFENSE" means 'and the reason they didn't score much had nothing to do with the SEA defense, yes?' frick you're dumb. I was reading your run on sentences and idiot grammar so don't worry about my English.
 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2014
Posts: 3387
Posted: #45
"you seem to be saying' what is that? can't you read what I wrote and comprehend it? I write what I mean, not open for your moronic interpretation. Seattle goes 3-0 to start the season, Denver being the toughest, but it will still be a 14 pt spread. peyton will be lucky if he walks away from that one
All Forums | NFL Betting
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.