Question about today's line

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Question about today's line

    So this has been brought up a couple of times today, and I think it merits further discussion.  Certainly many here will label me a troll (as always) for questioning such a thing, but this should be discussed. 

    Brady was listed on the injury report which, I have been reminded constantly, is so that betting people have the same information.  But apparently as noted by PFT the line moved this week substantially. 

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/06/theres-something-fishy-about-the-pats-fins-game/

    According to others here, brady had a finger issue, but that is not listed on the injury report.  Are the patriots purposely concealing information for the benefit of the bookies?  I don't think so. 

    But if this is true, then the pats are concealing (against the rules) injuries that that should be reported.  Right? 

    Please let me know if I am wrong.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Question about today's line


    In Response to Question about today's line:
    So this has been brought up a couple of times today, and I think it merits further discussion.  Certainly many here will label me a troll (as always) for questioning such a thing, but this should be discussed.  Brady was listed on the injury report which, I have been reminded constantly, is so that betting people have the same information.  But apparently as noted by PFT the line moved this week substantially.  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/06/theres-something-fishy-about-the-pats-fins-game/ According to others here, brady had a finger issue, but that is not listed on the injury report.  Are the patriots purposely concealing information for the benefit of the bookies?  I don't think so.  But if this is true, then the pats are concealing (against the rules) injuries that that should be reported.  Right?  Please let me know if I am wrong.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Dogg, You're killing me with this..Troll or not, Why post it?
    You can get responses to your posts without this junk.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: Question about today's line

    You're wrong.

    It was reported before the game in two places:


    You're fishing for reasons to hate on the Patriots.

    Belichick isn't required to explain why he took Brady out of the Saints game.  He's only required to file the injury report according to league standards.  He listed "finger" as an issue on the injury report that was required by the league.

    Instead, revel in the fact that the Colts have Mathis and Freeney to rush the passer while we get to watch Burgess get beat on a regular basis.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from simroy. Show simroy's posts

    Re: Question about today's line

    In Response to Question about today's line:
    So this has been brought up a couple of times today, and I think it merits further discussion.  Certainly many here will label me a troll (as always) for questioning such a thing, but this should be discussed.  Brady was listed on the injury report which, I have been reminded constantly, is so that betting people have the same information.  But apparently as noted by PFT the line moved this week substantially.  http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/06/theres-something-fishy-about-the-pats-fins-game/ According to others here, brady had a finger issue, but that is not listed on the injury report.  Are the patriots purposely concealing information for the benefit of the bookies?  I don't think so.  But if this is true, then the pats are concealing (against the rules) injuries that that should be reported.  Right?  Please let me know if I am wrong.
    Posted by underdoggg


    Not a troll, sure and Obama's not a liberal.  Anyways, before the game (during the pre-game shows), the finger issue was brought up and if memory serves, Brady was listed as "probable."  But since you're so worried about the perception WRT to gambling, don't the Colts have a tendency, after locking up a playoff spot and/or home field advantage, of playing their backup players after the first couple of possessions?  Only reason I'm asking is - isn't that kinda' the same thing.  Please let me know if I am wrong.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Question about today's line

    Think up a scenario where the Patriots could either have an advantage in the game or someone could make money on a wager by working the injury report. 

    You will find that there is no advantage listing or not listing players when it comes to winning the game.

    You will see that the only way to make money by messing with the injury report would be to do something nobody expects.  For example, make evryone believe Brady won't play, then play him or vice versa.  Everyone knew Brady would play, then he played.  I'd also add he was on the report so this is people who don't know what they don't know making stuff up.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Question about today's line

    In Response to Re: Question about today's line:
    In Response to Question about today's line : Not a troll, sure and Obama's not a liberal.  Anyways, before the game (during the pre-game shows), the finger issue was brought up and if memory serves, Brady was listed as "probable."  But since you're so worried about the perception WRT to gambling, don't the Colts have a tendency, after locking up a playoff spot and/or home field advantage, of playing their backup players after the first couple of possessions?  Only reason I'm asking is - isn't that kinda' the same thing.  Please let me know if I am wrong.
    Posted by simroy

    Brady was listed as probable for his SHOULDER.  Now I know that the top of the humerus is connected to the radius and the radius is connected to the metacarpel and the (sing with me) metacarpel is connected to the carpel, etc. etc. I think you get the point.  One is not the other. 

    As for the colts resting players vs. not revealing injuries.  Apples and oranges.  
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from simroy. Show simroy's posts

    Re: Question about today's line

    In Response to Re: Question about today's line:
    In Response to Re: Question about today's line : Brady was listed as probable for his SHOULDER.  Now I know that the top of the humerus is connected to the radius and the radius is connected to the metacarpel and the (sing with me) metacarpel is connected to the carpel, etc. etc. I think you get the point.  One is not the other.  As for the colts resting players vs. not revealing injuries.  Apples and oranges.  
    Posted by underdoggg


    Well, I'm certainly not qualified to partake in anatomical or musical discourse.  However, the issue of "not revealing injuries" isn't in play because the finger issue was a last-minute thing - but it does bring out the best in conspiracy theorists.  Your guise as a non-troll just asking a question is pure crapola (I know that much about bodily functions).  Apples and oranges?  How so?  One team may have a late injury problem that had nothing to do with lines or betting or whatever.  Another may, after a line has been set, only play starters for one possession.  If you're going to look at all the things the Pats do to try to "upset" the betting or competitive apple cart, a fine upstanding non-troll like you ought to be able to be fair in regards to your own team.  For example:  in your view, the Pats hide an injury to gain a competive and/or present a wagering advantage.  Yet, when the Colts decide to rest their players (and for the record I agree with that philosophy), even though that decision certainly has an affect on other teams playoff chances in some instances - all is good?  Yeah, sure - I get it.  Pats do it, it's no nefarious.  Others do a moral variation of it - it's apples and oranges.  Nice to see your supposed objectivity hasn't been compromised by home town bias.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share