Betting Talk

Random thoughts and stuff

kanekane Senior Member
edited April 5 in Sports Betting
In Aaron Rodgers' last 17 home games, he's thrown 41 TD's with no interceptions, he's pretty good
«13456727

Comments

  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Barring something very unusual, it looks like the playoff teams in the NL are set. The Mets, Cards, Dodgers, Cubs, and Pirates. No playoff races in September, pretty strange
  • golfer1000golfer1000 Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    In Aaron Rodgers' last 17 home games, he's thrown 41 TD's with no interceptions, he's pretty good

    I bet he throws 3 picks this week now that you posted this lol:) .... Jk, he is good!
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    I don't eat them often, but God damn Oreo cookies are fucking good
  • Jake T.Jake T. Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    I don't eat them often, but God damn Oreo cookies are fucking good

    Can't disagree with that.
  • Dave MasonDave Mason Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    even the Golden ones are pretty good
  • TortugaTortuga Moderator
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    I don't eat them often, but God damn Oreo cookies are fucking good

    It doesn't make sense. They shouldn't be as good as they are, but they definitely are. And now I want Oreos.
  • buckeyesbuckeyes Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    I don't eat them often, but God damn Oreo cookies are fucking good

    Funny I was eating some Teddy Grahams (first time in years)...can't believe how good they are.
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Despite Denver's 2-0 record, I'm not liking what I've seen from Manning so far, I think the Broncos are in a little trouble, he just doesn't look the same
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Dave Mason wrote: »
    even the Golden ones are pretty good

    Never tried those, why mess with perfection
  • RonbetsRonbets Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    Despite Denver's 2-0 record, I'm not liking what I've seen from Manning so far, I think the Broncos are in a little trouble, he just doesn't look the same

    Kane, don't let the talking heads plant seeds in ur mindset. They just beat 2 upper echelon teams. Yeah, he's a year older but still elite. I'll give you Eli in a trade straight up for him for the rest of the year.
  • buckeyesbuckeyes Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    Despite Denver's 2-0 record, I'm not liking what I've seen from Manning so far, I think the Broncos are in a little trouble, he just doesn't look the same

    Doesn't look like he has a lot of confidence in his OLine. As the season progresses and they improve, so will his performance. He has more than enough weapons and a solid D.

    EDIT: Kane just replied to you over there.
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Ronbets wrote: »
    Kane, don't let the talking heads plant seeds in ur mindset. They just beat 2 upper echelon teams. Yeah, he's a year older but still elite. I'll give you Eli in a trade straight up for him for the rest of the year.

    Ron, I'm not listening to anyone, just what my eyes tell me. First off, I'm a big Peyton Manning fan, he's probably the smartest QB I've ever seen, and I was defending him last year, but he just doesn't look the same to me, his arm strength isn't there. There was a pass he attempted late in the game, right before he threw the TD that tied it, he had a receiver open at the goal line, but the ball fell at his legs, I'm thinking a couple years ago that's an easy throw for him. Can he still be effective? Yeah, he hasn't lost any power in his brain, but his arm doesn't look strong to me, and as we get deeper in the season, weather starts to become an issue, making his lack of arm strength even more important. The Broncos are 2-0, but could easily be 0-2, I think they're going to have to rely more on their running game, and they do have a good defense, so we'll see how the season plays out. BTW, I'm not now, nor have I ever been an Eli fan, so I wouldn't make that trade.
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    If your name is Corn Elder, don't you have to play for Nebraska?
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    I understand why the NCAA told their officials to start calling "targeting" penalties a couple of years ago, they want to protect a defenseless receiver from getting hit above the shoulders, I don't have a problem with that, but the punishment is way too severe imo. A player who gets called for a "targeting" penalty gets thrown out of the game, and then is forced to sit out the first half of the next game, that's way too punitive. Call the 15 yard penalty, but don't kick the player out. They could do what the NBA does with technicals, once you get a certain amount, you're suspended for a game. The NCAA could set a certain amount of "targeting" penalties called against a player before he gets suspended for a game, let's say three of them, then you sit out the next game, or even two targeting penalties, but to kick a kid out of the game, then force him to miss the first half of the next game in way over the top
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    And Ron, if you're reading this, no, my above post wasn't made because the Canes had two players kicked out due to the targeting rule. I would have posted the same exact thing had two Nebraska players been thrown out
  • kdogkdog Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    If someone actually targets I'm fine with the penalty as it is. The problem is most of the calls really aren't targeting, the penalized player just missed and made the hit high.
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kdog wrote: »
    If someone actually targets I'm fine with the penalty as it is. The problem is most of the calls really aren't targeting, the penalized player just missed and made the hit high.

    If a defender hits a guy square in the head, an obvious spear, then I can agree with him being thrown out, but like you say, a lot of these targeting calls are just a guy hitting a receiver a little too high with no intent to do so
  • BetThemDogsBetThemDogs Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    I understand why the NCAA told their officials to start calling "targeting" penalties a couple of years ago, they want to protect a defenseless receiver from getting hit above the shoulders, I don't have a problem with that, but the punishment is way too severe imo. A player who gets called for a "targeting" penalty gets thrown out of the game, and then is forced to sit out the first half of the next game, that's way too punitive. Call the 15 yard penalty, but don't kick the player out. They could do what the NBA does with technicals, once you get a certain amount, you're suspended for a game. The NCAA could set a certain amount of "targeting" penalties called against a player before he gets suspended for a game, let's say three of them, then you sit out the next game, or even two targeting penalties, but to kick a kid out of the game, then force him to miss the first half of the next game in way over the top

    They need to do like they do in basketball--- review the play, and if it looks like the targeting was intentional kick the guy out. If it was just a bad tackle (or the QB started sliding which is one of the main culprits in this) enforce the penalty, but leave the kid in the game.
  • RonbetsRonbets Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Notice all the chintzy defensive holding calls so far this year? Goodell wants more scoring. Like his dad, he can fuk things up.
  • RonbetsRonbets Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    And Ron, if you're reading this, no, my above post wasn't made because the Canes had two players kicked out due to the targeting rule. I would have posted the same exact thing had two Nebraska players been thrown out

    Let it go.................
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Leonard Fournette is a fucking beast
  • kcburghkcburgh Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    running out of the shotgun on 4th and 1 doesn't seem like the best idea to me..
  • bobbyputnambobbyputnam Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kcburgh wrote: »
    running out of the shotgun on 4th and 1 doesn't seem like the best idea to me..

    have never understood that, drives me nuts
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    When they put up a total on the Texas Tech/Baylor game, I think we might see 90
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    Arietta and Grienke should be named co-winners of the Cy Young, I can't imagine either one of them not winning it with the seasons they've both had
  • kcburghkcburgh Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    tonight is the night the Chiefs get a td from a wr...
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    When they put up a total on the Texas Tech/Baylor game, I think we might see 90

    Nope, just 85.5
  • golfer1000golfer1000 Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    Nope, just 85.5

    Was really shocked at the opener of 15 and now it's 15.5. I thought Baylor would open 10.5-11.

    What's your opinion here Kane ?
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    golfer1000 wrote: »
    Was really shocked at the opener of 15 and now it's 15.5. I thought Baylor would open 10.5-11.

    What's your opinion here Kane ?

    TT's QB is listed as questionable, so I want to see his status later in the week. It might be tough for the Raiders to bounce back after that heartbreaking loss last week to TCU, more than likely a pass for me. The game starts at 3:30, it might not end until 8:00
  • kanekane Senior Member
    edited September 2015
    kane wrote: »
    Nope, just 85.5

    The over just got hit, at 88 now, we may see a 90, has there ever been a total of 90?
Sign In or Register to comment.