Dr Z is next

[SVN]

"Picking apart the pats"

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/12/07/pats.steelers/index.html

 

[richpats]

If the Pats were 11-1 there wouldn't be anyone picking the Steelers Sunday.

 

[alamo]

If the Pats were 11-1 there wouldn't be anyone picking the Steelers Sunday.

That's a good and interesting and non-critical article... the title "Dr Z is next" seems to imply it's not and is misleading.

If the Pats were 11-1 the spread would likely be a lot lower, which is why Patriots bettors wouldn't be as nervous as they are this week.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Does this clown's act never get old? Same old stupid stuff about how the Pats are "gonna lose" and how now the league has the "blueprint" from the Eagles and Ravens. I swear this guy never gets tired of being wrong. This article is almost as bad as his knob polishing of Peyton Manning after the guy threw like 3 picks to lose to the Chargers.

 

[godef]

That's a good and interesting and non-critical article... the title "Dr Z is next" seems to imply it's not and is misleading.

If the Pats were 11-1 the spread would likely be a lot lower, which is why Patriots bettors wouldn't be as nervous as they are this week.

I have to agree. His article was nothing more than a report on football betting and public perception of the Patriots, not a direct critique.

 

[alamo]

Does this clown's act never get old? Same old stupid stuff about how the Pats are "gonna lose" and how now the league has the "blueprint". I swear this guy never gets tired of being wrong. This article is almost as bad as his knob polishing of Peyton Manning after the guy threw like 3 picks to lose to the Chargers.

I can say with close to 100% certainty you didn't actually read the link, since the word "blueprint" never appears in the linked article and he never says the Patriots are going to lose.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I have to agree. His article was nothing more than a report on football betting and public perception of the Patriots, not a direct critique.

and not a good one at that. The oddsmakers try to get even action on each side and it's more an attempt to get even action than it is a reflection of the predicted outcome. The reason the spreads went to 20+ was to offset the heavy betting in NE's favor. Now people are betting the other side and spreads are coming down ( it happens and you cover 9/10 times and then don't twice in a row.....)

 

[alamo]

and not a good one at that. The oddsmakers try to get even action on each side and it's more an attempt to get even action than it is a reflection of the predicted outcome. The reason the spreads went to 20+ was to offset the heavy betting in NE's favor. Now people are betting the other side and spreads are coming down ( it happens and you cover 9/10 times and then don't twice in a row.....)

I think you just criticized what he said, then basically repeated the same things.

 

[DarrylS]

In his weekly standings he called the Pats, "old and tired".. Rodney will appreciate that quote.

 

[GameDay]

While it's true that smart monies went to Pitts at first, there is some movement to the Pats right now.

Some high rollers want the Pats at ~9.5 but the line so mart and has not budged.

 

[richpats]

Does this clown's act never get old? Same old stupid stuff about how the Pats are "gonna lose" and how now the league has the "blueprint" from the Eagles and Ravens. I swear this guy never gets tired of being wrong. This article is almost as bad as his knob polishing of Peyton Manning after the guy threw like 3 picks to lose to the Chargers.

Actually it was SIX picks, but he went on about how Peyton was courageous enough to take snaps for 4 quarters and drive his team for the (almost) GW-FG.....which was only set up by his D scoring a TD for him.