Why were the sharps on the Falcons??? And why did I tail?!!

Mudcat · 12-06-09, 01:57 PM

I am on the Falcons. I could give a serious answer to your question but I sense you are just venting/panicking.

I would obviously have preferred a different start to the game but let's let them play the whole thing.

StraitShooter · 12-06-09, 02:01 PM

I took em too

prob cause they were due more than anything else

dwaechte · 12-06-09, 02:06 PM

They weren't, this wasn't exactly a sharp consensus game.

The Falcons have been awful three weeks in a row and have their backup QB, I did not understand this line.

The Seer · 12-06-09, 02:13 PM

game not over

Capybara · 12-06-09, 03:10 PM

Amazing. This ONE side kills both a four-team parlay and a five-team parlay!!!

I am so sad right now. I really could have used those.

Like, REALLY.

And it wasn't even my own idea, I was just tailing the sharps! Let that be a lesson... if it smells fishy to you, DO NOT EAT IT.

pokernut9999 · 12-06-09, 03:16 PM

Like sheep led to a ___________ !!!!

jsmithj88 · 12-06-09, 03:27 PM

u bet on a team with a backup QB and RB with a bunch of starters out

Mudcat · 12-06-09, 03:37 PM

The Falcons play well at home. They had won about 8 in a row there.

The Eagles have some key injuries of their own. Even at full strength they aren't exactly an all-time powerhouse. This is the team that lost to Oakland at home.

This looked like a typical scenario - like last Monday with the Roethlisberger situation - where the public was over-reacting to injury and driving the spread out of whack with reality. The public frequently misunderstands the team nature of football and over-reacts to injury.

I find that applying this kind of thinking is profitable in the long term and I felt good getting more than a field goal on the spread - however I did not imagine for a second that the game was a lock. And it blew up. It happens.

So that is my answer to the question in the thread title.