[dynamite140]

Jay Cutler

[Chuck Sims]

Under 35 is the play

What was your 2nd choice, the Bears?

[kerrywoodwins20]

Yep, what can argue with your homer opinions? Certainly not objective statistics.

Yes... 'The Bears beat the Jets' is sure a homer opinion. Sounds like a fact to me.



Two 11-5 teams, one beat the other, and one is in the division that represents the super bowl winner. It isn't hard.

[yisman]

Yes... 'The Bears beat the Jets' is sure a homer opinion. Sounds like a fact to me. Two 11-5 teams, one beat the other, and one is in the division that represents the super bowl winner. It isn't hard.

The Jets were clearly the better team last year. It isn't hard.

In fact, no one has said the Bears were better except for two huge Bears homers. Your response to that is whining about "east coast bias"

I offered a bet. Why aren't you willing to bet Bears make playoffs?

Bettors cleaned up again

Most bettors. Those Bears homers got their clock cleaned again.

[ThaTopMoron]

well banking on the Jets 1st half yesterday and the Chargers first half as well... it was too easy. taking the Giants first half tonight, these favorites seem to be getting the job done in most games early on.

i told you fukkks

[d2bets]

The Jets were clearly the better team last year. It isn't hard.

In fact, no one has said the Bears were better except for two huge Bears homers. Your response to that is whining about "east coast bias"

I offered a bet. Why aren't you willing to bet Bears make playoffs?




Most bettors. Those Bears homers got their clock cleaned again.

I'll bet the Bears to make the playoffs, as long as you give me fair market value. No one likes to get ripped off.

I can't find playoff odds. Divisional is +668 at Pinny. Let's call it 4-1.

[d2bets]

The Jets were clearly the better team last year. It isn't hard.

In fact, no one has said the Bears were better except for two huge Bears homers. Your response to that is whining about "east coast bias"

I offered a bet. Why aren't you willing to bet Bears make playoffs?




Most bettors. Those Bears homers got their clock cleaned again.

What do you mean by "again"?

[d2bets]

The Jets were clearly the better team last year. It isn't hard.

In fact, no one has said the Bears were better except for two huge Bears homers. Your response to that is whining about "east coast bias"

I offered a bet. Why aren't you willing to bet Bears make playoffs?




Most bettors. Those Bears homers got their clock cleaned again.

I didn't even say the Bears were better. I figure it's pretty clear that it was basically a dead heat. Same record, same distance in playoffs, close H2H game. Seems pretty obvious, really. If you argue either way, it's by a whisker at best.

[LT Profits]

How about the fact that the Bears were -3 at home vs. Jets late in the season and pushed? Isn't -3 a pretty standard home line for an evenly matched team? You're bringing up a steamed line on a red hot SB winner as evidence? Come on now.

I think the ultimate proof of who the "better" team is is who would be favored on a neutral field. I think the Sagarin Ratings are the best barometer for that, and the Bears would have been dogs to both the Packers and the Jets.

You mentioned Packers being a steamed line, but they were rated 6.5 points higher by Sagarin, which is an unbiased power rating.

[yisman]

I'll bet the Bears to make the playoffs, as long as you give me fair market value. No one likes to get ripped off.

I can't find playoff odds. Divisional is +668 at Pinny. Let's call it 4-1.

Wow, 4/1 is not fair market value.

I didn't even say the Bears were better. I figure it's pretty clear that it was basically a dead heat. Same record, same distance in playoffs, close H2H game. Seems pretty obvious, really. If you argue either way, it's by a whisker at best.

Well, your friend kerrywood seems to think it's obvious the Bears were better, and I was arguing against that.

Their records were similar... Bears lost a close game with their 3rd string QB to the super bowl winner... and Bears owned the head to head. Opinions are one thing. I think Bears, they may think Jets. But all the evidence points to the Bears being better. Obvious.

East coast media bias is not made up. if the Jets were in Chicago and the Bears were in New York, no one would think the Jets were better.

Honestly... you homers that think the Bears are terrible every year are just listening to the experts. Who is better? The Bears or the Jets? Last year, everyone slobbed on the Jets all year, and then the Bears beat them heads up, still slobbed on the Jets after that.

And in 2006, when the Bears made it to the Superbowl, they were projected like 31st from SI and like 27th from ESPN...

The Bears are pretty much always underrated. If you bet them on the ML every game this year, you will make a profit. Pretty much guaranteed.

[LT Profits]

Yes... 'The Bears beat the Jets' is sure a homer opinion. Sounds like a fact to me.



Two 11-5 teams, one beat the other, and one is in the division that represents the super bowl winner. It isn't hard.

Footballoutsiders is a great site, maybe you should study it more instead of wasting time jumping on your team's collective jock.

And you keep harping on the fact that the Bears beat the Jets and almost swept the Packers, but none of that means anything when evaluating who is better. Look at footballoutsiders and Sagarin each week and you will get a feel of who the better teams really are. Sagarin was the only set of power ratings I saw that had Green Bay ranked #1 BEFORE the playoffs started last season (they had Pats#2), and they had Atlanta ranked the lowest of any ratings I saw, which was also right on.

[d2bets]

Wow, 4/1 is not fair market value.



Well, your friend kerrywood seems to think it's obvious the Bears were better, and I was arguing against that.

OK, then tell or show me what fair market value is. What are the chances that the Bears get a wild card (but don't win the division)? 5%? 10%? 15%? 20%? 25%?

[yisman]

The only site I saw with a line on it was synbet, which was offering +200.

[Powderguy]

HAHA, wow Bears backers got raped

[BigdaddyQH]

I see the "experts" in here are off and running. Going to be a lot of losers in here, as usual.

[d2bets]

The only site I saw with a line on it was synbet, which was offering +200.

Unless it's a 2-way line, that doesn't indicate FMV. +668 to win division, that's about 15%. I think maybe you could add another 15% or so for one of the two wild card slots. So combined that's about 30%. Actually you're about right, I guess that wouldn't be a lot more than +200.

Gimme +250 and it's a deal. My 200 to your 500. No point transfer now, I'm good for it and I trust you're good for it.

[kerrywoodwins20]

Footballoutsiders is a great site, maybe you should study it more instead of wasting time jumping on your team's collective jock.

And you keep harping on the fact that the Bears beat the Jets and almost swept the Packers, but none of that means anything when evaluating who is better. Look at footballoutsiders and Sagarin each week and you will get a feel of who the better teams really are. Sagarin was the only set of power ratings I saw that had Green Bay ranked #1 BEFORE the playoffs started last season (they had Pats#2), and they had Atlanta ranked the lowest of any ratings I saw, which was also right on.

Green Bay was not the best football team last year you clown. If the Eagles can make chip shot field goals, the Packers are sent home in round 1 of the playoffs.

[kerrywoodwins20]

HAHA, wow Bears backers got raped

As they should have. The Bears looked awful last preseason too... no reason to expect them to take preseason games seriously when they didn't last year.

[kerrywoodwins20]

I think the ultimate proof of who the "better" team is is who would be favored on a neutral field. I think the Sagarin Ratings are the best barometer for that, and the Bears would have been dogs to both the Packers and the Jets.

You mentioned Packers being a steamed line, but they were rated 6.5 points higher by Sagarin, which is an unbiased power rating.

Okay, well last year, the Bears were -3 at home vs the Jets... that means that on a neutral field, it'd be a PK... so if it is SO obvious that the Jets are better to you and everyone else, why is vegas agreeing that the teams were pretty similar BEFORE the Bears win?

[kerrywoodwins20]

And if the Packers are the true number one team in the land (by your estimation), then you should take notice that the Bears were competitive in 3 games against the Packers, winning 1 (and losing 2 others late, one was a throw away game) and then remember that the Packers embarrassed the Jets and shut them out.

[TrapperDapper]

Bigger deal, 30 point loss? Or Terrelle Thomas losing a knee?

[rsnnh12]

And if the Packers are the true number one team in the land (by your estimation), then you should take notice that the Bears were competitive in 3 games against the Packers, winning 1 (and losing 2 others late, one was a throw away game) and then remember that the Packers embarrassed the Jets and shut them out.

If you want to go with that logic... the Pats beat the Packers, annihilated the Bears in Chicago, and lost 2 of 3 to the Jets including in the playoffs.

[d2bets]

Bigger deal, 30 point loss? Or Terrelle Thomas losing a knee?

That's a terrible loss for the Giants. Preseason scores in themselves are purely meaningless. The Colts are 4-24 over the last 7 preseasons. Meaningless.

[kerrywoodwins20]

If you want to go with that logic... the Pats beat the Packers, annihilated the Bears in Chicago, and lost 2 of 3 to the Jets including in the playoffs.

So the Pats narrowly beat the Packers without Aaron Rodgers? You'd have a point if Aaron Rodgers had played.. but he didn't, so even your sarcastic point is an epic fail.

[rsnnh12]

So the Pats narrowly beat the Packers without Aaron Rodgers? You'd have a point if Aaron Rodgers had played.. but he didn't, so even your sarcastic point is an epic fail.

Who's to say the Packers would have done any better with Rodgers? What makes Belichick so good is that he prepares his D very thoroughly and knows how to cause problems for opposing QBs. There was no real footage of Flynn, so the D was relatively unprepared. That's why the game was close.

Rodgers- plenty of tape on him, easier to find flaws to exploit before the game even starts.

So again, Patriots whooped Bears, beat Pack, and lost 2 of 3 to Jets... using your logic, that makes the Jets better than the Bears

[kerrywoodwins20]

Who's to say the Packers would have done any better with Rodgers? What makes Belichick so good is that he prepares his D very thoroughly and knows how to cause problems for opposing QBs. There was no real footage of Flynn, so the D was relatively unprepared. That's why the game was close.

Rodgers- plenty of tape on him, easier to find flaws to exploit before the game even starts.

So again, Patriots whooped Bears, beat Pack, and lost 2 of 3 to Jets... using your logic, that makes the Jets better than the Bears

Bears destroyed Miami and the Jets lost one to Miami.

[rsnnh12]

Bears destroyed Miami and the Jets lost one to Miami.

So do you finally see the flaws in the logic?

[kerrywoodwins20]

So do you finally see the flaws in the logic?

I see the flaws of taking two pretty identical resumes (Bears/Jets) when both teams went 11-5 and lost in the NFC/AFC championship game, and guaranteeing the Jets are better even though the Bears won the head to head match up.

Jets get a lot more media hype than the Bears, so I"m guessing that is why people overrate them.

[rsnnh12]

I see the flaws of taking two pretty identical resumes (Bears/Jets) when both teams went 11-5 and lost in the NFC/AFC championship game, and guaranteeing the Jets are better even though the Bears won the head to head match up.

Jets get a lot more media hype than the Bears, so I"m guessing that is why people overrate them.

I think they're better because there are so few positions that I feel the Bears are better in.
QB- wash. Cutler is more skilled, Sanchez is more clutch
RB- last year, I'd take Tomlinson and Greene. I think Forte is either overrated or misused, I can't tell which.
WR- Jets, easily
TE- Bears, but they just lost him
OL- Jets
Tough call for both DL and LB, both groups are great for both teams
DB- Jets
Special teams- Bears

Jets have more talent at more positions, IMO. I watch a lot of both teams, so my opinion is not based on ESPN bullshit.

[kerrywoodwins20]

I think they're better because there are so few positions that I feel the Bears are better in.
QB- wash. Cutler is more skilled, Sanchez is more clutch
RB- last year, I'd take Tomlinson and Greene. I think Forte is either overrated or misused, I can't tell which.
WR- Jets, easily
TE- Bears, but they just lost him
OL- Jets
Tough call for both DL and LB, both groups are great for both teams
DB- Jets
Special teams- Bears

Jets have more talent at more positions, IMO. I watch a lot of both teams, so my opinion is not based on ESPN bullshit.

Cutler is 10 times the QB Sanchez is.

If you put Sanchez in Chicago with the Bears' Oline and their WR, his pretty boy ass would be injured every single week, and his numbers would be terrible.

Put Cutler on the Jets conversely, with all that time to throw and those WR's, and he'd put up pro bowl numbers.

[rsnnh12]

Cutler is 10 times the QB Sanchez is.

If you put Sanchez in Chicago with the Bears' Oline and their WR, his pretty boy ass would be injured every single week, and his numbers would be terrible.

Put Cutler on the Jets conversely, with all that time to throw and those WR's, and he'd put up pro bowl numbers.

But he would still fall apart under pressure. Like I said, Cutler is far more skilled, but he just doesn't have the intangibles. Sanchez, thus far, has played great playoff ball.

[LT Profits]

Green Bay was not the best football team last year you clown. If the Eagles can make chip shot field goals, the Packers are sent home in round 1 of the playoffs.

And yet they would have been favored over every team in the league on a neutral field.

The more you talk, the more idiotic you come off. Despite your blatant homerism, I still pointed you to some nice sites where you could learn something about gambling before running your mouth. I don't know what else I can do.

[kerrywoodwins20]

And yet they would have been favored over every team in the league on a neutral field.

The more you talk, the more idiotic you come off. Despite your blatant homerism, I still pointed you to some nice sites where you could learn something about gambling before running your mouth. I don't know what else I can do.

The same homers who think the Packers are the best team in the league are the same homers that say the Bears only beat them in match up one last year b/c the Packers committed 18 penalties...

Guess what... if you commit penalties, they get called.

The Packers wouldn't be favored over the Patriots on a neutral site.

[LT Profits]

Okay, well last year, the Bears were -3 at home vs the Jets... that means that on a neutral field, it'd be a PK... so if it is SO obvious that the Jets are better to you and everyone else, why is vegas agreeing that the teams were pretty similar BEFORE the Bears win?

Because there were other factors at work there, as the Bears NEEDED the game more and stuff like that is factored into the line late in the season. The Jets would have been favored had the teams met in the Super Bowl (I think Sagarin had Jets -3 or -3.5).

[LT Profits]

The same homers who think the Packers are the best team in the league are the same homers that say the Bears only beat them in match up one last year b/c the Packers committed 18 penalties...

Guess what... if you commit penalties, they get called.

The Packers wouldn't be favored over the Patriots on a neutral site.

Packers/Pats would have been a Pick, Sagarin had GB -0.25. Remember Green Bay was injury ravaged all year and they were at their best during the post season.