Ozymandius

I don't agree with Mike and Mike, but 78 yards and a touch is a GOOD day in fantasy football, not a poor one. YPC does NOT matter in fantasy. I think most owners would be pleased with the 13 or so fantasy points Willis scored yesterday.

Agreed. That's StLouis on the road with a sucker's line. Of course, the Packers still have to play tonight, and if Favre gets injured or something, then yeah, consider it.

I think flaming redhead is his wife. Not 100% positive though.

We still got a chance, but if nothing else, it's good practice for JP and a chance to evaluate how he fares when there's pressure on him to make plays.

I see you took Indy out but left Chicago in. I think the Bears are going to cause you lots of heartburn this weekend. Here's the thing... you didn't really accomplish much by teasing the Bears to +2. The original spread was low enough that whoever won the game was probably going to cover the spread anyway, and +2 doesn't change that at all. That's really the case for most NFL games...whichever team wins will cover. In the first two weeks of the NFL season, the team that got the W also covered the spread 28 out of 32 games. That means all you had to do to be 28-4 against the spread was pick the right team to win in each game. That percentage is pretty much right in line with previous seasons as well. Basically, I'm saying I hope you're right that the Bears will win, but if you're wrong, the tease won't help you out. In general, for teasers, I think it's better to take a big number and make it even bigger rather than taking a low number and keeping it low, especially when you're betting against a good team playing at home.

Good luck, bro. Like Buff, I doubt your teaser will hit because I think at least one or two of those teams will lose. If I had to guess, I think Indy and Chicago are going down.

This game should be a no bet, imo. It's two teams under two new regimes and they've only played two games each so far. I think it's way too early to draw any sort of conclusions about either team. Would anyone REALLY be surprised if the team with the smart, veteran QB won? OTOH, would anyone REALLY be surprised if the Bills solidly beat the Jets on the strength of their defense? Eh. 5.5 is a lot of points to give up in what could be a very low scoring game, so I'd pass.

I said all offseason that Moorman was our best player and I wasn't kidding. Field position is everything for a cold weather football team. That doesn't mean that some of the youngsters on the Bills can't eventually develop into better players, but as of right now, Brian Moorman is the best football player on this team, imo.

Anyone who wants to doubt Losman has every right to do so until he proves himself. I just find it interesting that there is so much focus on that position when ultimately I don't think it's that important that he succeeds. The regime currently in place did not draft Losman so they have no emotional investment to stick with him through failure. If JP sucks like many people think, then he'll be gone from the team very soon. This isn't a situation where we have to deal with him sucking year after year all in the name of developing him. There's a long season ahead, and there will be plenty of games in which the defense isn't dominant and JP will need to make plays for the team to win. If he screws up, I expect him to be released this offseason. We're in a day and age where you can sign a Pro Bowler like Drew Brees through free agency or trade for one like Matt Hasselbeck after another team has put in the work to groom him. It's up to the people in charge of player personnel to find the QB that will lead Buffalo to a championship. If that QB isn't JP Losman, no biggie.

Same. I was far more comfortable putting money on the Week 1 lines. I wouldn't touch any of the big lines this week. - Pretty sure the sharps are on Tampa. Line started out at 7 and now down to 5.5. It makes sense since the Bucs have historically performed well against Vick and the Falcons, and the public should be overrating Atlanta and underrating Tampa after last week. Besides that, I only have a gut feeling on a couple other games. - I like Carolina to bounce back strong if Steve Smith can play. And maybe even if he can't. - Vegas is begging for action on the Rams at only -3, imo. Yet, I'll probably give it to them because I'm a believer after the Denver game. - I like Dallas. Skins' secondary is a mess without Shawn Springs. Parcells just needs to keep Witten and a RB in to max-protect Bledsoe, and T.O. / Glenn / Crayton should be enough to shred. - Finally, if Big Ben plays, I like the Steelers to beat the Jags.

Thanks, HopsGuy. I appreciate your response, and don't worry about "convincing" me with a "REALLY good reason" -- that was just my way of responding to what I perceived to be your dismissiveness of my first post on the subject. As in "Oh yeah, you think I'm wrong? Show me why!". But we're in reasonable discussion mode now, which is far better. I don't think we actually disagree very much at all, imo. I never suggested a conspiracy theory; on the contrary, what I'm trying to convey is exactly the concept of MANAGED RISK that you just brought up. Here, let me try to unify what you're saying with what I'm saying, and see if you agree. We both agree that casinos employ a master handicapper to set the lines in a manner in which the casinos can be profitable. We just disagree on how the handicapper performs this task. He IS a risk manager; however, your interpretation of managing risk seems to be always setting the lines with the goal of a 50/50 split on the action so they can collect the vig. If that were the ONLY way to manage risk, then frankly, the master handicapper is doing a poor job because he is NOT setting lines that receive equal action on both sides. The public was all over the Broncos last week, as they were with the Eagles (-4.5 over Houston), the Panthers (-5 over Atlanta), and the Seahawks (-6 over the Lions). Common sense tells us this, but even if it didn't, there are soures that track that kind of information that confirm it. (Heck, Yahoo has a spread pick'em game that tracks the percentage of players on each side: http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/pi...=&type=s&week=1 - very few of these games were close to 50/50) Another way to manage risk, to make profits, is to identify the gaps between what is likely to occur and the public perception of what is likely to occur. So yes, what I'm suggesting is that these master handicappers are VERY good at predicting winners and losers in football games and gauging how far off their predictions are from public opinion; in the end, is it really hard to believe that such a skill exists? Now, let's examine how the handicapper can use this knowledge to MANAGE RISK and make profits. Let's use the Broncos-Rams example again. We're going to also employ the old Expected Value formula, where E.V. = Likelihood x Value. If the master handicapper predicts that there is a 70% chance the Rams will beat the Broncos, and he also knows the majority of the public (say 80%) will bet the Broncos if only giving 3.5 points, tada, he has found a way to create value that is greater than the vig. He COULD try to set the line so that there is equal action on both sides (key word being "try"), but the Expected Value of that move is less than the Expected Value of setting the line at 3.5 points. Explicity (keeping in mind 70% chance the Rams win and 80% of the money on the Broncos at 3.5 points): E.V. of 50/50 action is capturing 100% of the vig, or 1.00 x .10 = .10 (10% of the money) E.V. of setting the line at 3.5 = probability of capturing the 80% of the money on Denver SUBTRACT the probability of losing the 80% of the money on Denver = .70 (.80 - .20) - .30 (.80 - .20) = .24 (24% of the money), or more than twice the E.V. of capturing the vig. So yes, the casinos take on the risk of losing the 80% on the Broncos if Denver covers, but over time and across many bets, this kind of managed risk analysis will be profitable and more profitable than just getting 100% of the vig. To make a poker comparison, sometimes you will go All In while knowing you only have a 33% chance of winning if you are receiving 5 to 1 pot odds because even though you are risking your entire chipstack and, in fact, only have a 1 in 3 chance of not losing it, over the long run, the move will be profitable. Same thing here. The casinos will take on the chance of losing 80% of the money on a line if the pot odds are correct, so to speak. Because across many bets over time, their handicappers are good enough at managing risk in this manner to be profitable. That explains why the lines are not set to receive 50/50 action in most cases. In Week 1, my guess is Vegas lost money on the Eagles game because most of the bets were on the Eagles. But they more than made up for it with the money on the Broncos, Seahawks, and Panthers, who were popular public plays that did not cover. Over the long run, across many bets...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting If it's in Wikipedia, it must be true ;-) Basically, I need a REALLY good reason why Denver was only favored by 3.5 over the Rams last week to show me why both Wikipedia and my friends are wrong. Thanks.

Please explain then. I take nothing personal. Note: This isn't my "theory" but something that has been told to me by friends I know who live and breathe gambling. They could, of course, be wrong themselves, but it makes a lot of sense to me. They even have a term for what I described called "shading the line." I definitely need to hear more from your side of things before I believe I'm wrong here.

That's actually only true some of the time, and in truth, a small minority of the time. The betting action on any particular line is rarely ever 50/50 or even close to it if you check the percentages. It's an enormous task to get a 50/50 split because the public is always going to favor the favorite, particularly when it's "good" team vs "bad" team. They place their bets with images of a blowout dancing through their heads that would give them an easy cashout without considering the possibiliity of the underdog hanging in there with the favorite. So, in Week 1, even at New England -8 or -9 against the Bills, trust me, the vast majority of the bets were flowing in on New England. The goal of the betting line isn't really to create a 50/50 split but to create value for the bookies. Case in point, the line for the Denver-St. Louis game last week held steady all week at Denver -3.5. Do you really think the public was split 50/50 on that game? No way! Vegas could've set the line at Denver -6.5 and still have gotten most of the action on Denver. The reason they kept it at -3.5 was to actually ENCOURAGE more one-sided betting on the Broncos. Vegas knew, and we now know, in hindsight, that the Rams had a better than 50/50 chance of winning that game. They made some good free agent pickups and have really improved under the new coaching staff of Linehan and Haslett. Thus, by encouraging lopsided action on the Broncos, Vegas was creating value for itself. They could care less about the vig and a 50/50 split when they know they have, say, a 70% chance of winning 90% of the money. And that's what happened with the Denver-StL game. About 90% of the money was on Denver either in the form of straight up bets, teasers, or parlays; meanwhile, Vegas was sitting their enjoying their knowledge that they had a tremendous chance to count that 90% towards their earnings.

Yes, that is correct. If the Bills lose by less than 12, you will win $29.41 (you will have $79.21 in your account, in other words, if you started out with $50). But it's just silly to buy 3 points like that. The only way it's worth it for you is if the Patriots win by exactly 9,10,or 11 points. Otherwise you cost yourself $20.59 for no good reason at all.

Louisville's fairly deep at RB, plus the game is at Lousiville this year. Don't rule out anything yet.

Our DEs would seem to require a system where they are allowed 6-8 seconds to get to the QB and be strong at the point of attack against the run on their own without help from teammates. The Cover 2 probably doesn't fit.

You can. The Vegas over/under for number of Bills wins this year is 6.5 at around +110/-120. So you can bet like $1000 on the over to win $1100

Hmmm, so this is now gospel instead of wishful thinking.... I see... BTW, isn't Reyes making the minimum?

I don't think ANY of our QBs are the long-term answer, including JP. I'm pretty sure none of these three QBs will be starting for the Bills in 2008.

http://footballagogo.blogspot.com/2006/03/...k-how-ncaa.html Here's a blog entry I came across that uses college completion percentages to predict pro success. It suggests a trend but doesn't do a good enough job to support it. But it's interesting reading nonetheless.

Regarding JP's accuracy... his completion percentages were pretty pedestrian in college (so was Nall's) compared to what the elite QBs typically put up at that level. As a prospect, his accuracy is a real concern.

Gibson is low risk with good upside. Probably one of the our better offseason moves.

1. They probably drafted guys who were higher on the draftboard 2. They probably did try to sign him but he went with the other team instead so now they traded for him giving up basically nothing. Billy McMullen, who cares? I don't see why this move was dumb. It seems to be a complete nonevent.

Marv. I've always felt that the Bills were overconfident against the Giants in the Super Bowl, and I think Marv should have been more of a disciplinarian and reigned the team in a bit. Less partying, more focus on the game. We didn't stand a chance in the other three Bowls but that game was ours to win.