WEBVTT - Beating The Book: NFL MegaPod Super Bowl LV Props Edition

0:00:03.440 --> 0:00:15.200
<v Speaker 1>Check it down Man, Now down Man, Thursday morning, February

0:00:13.320 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 1>it is. It is the Beating the Book podcast megapod

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:23.919
<v Speaker 1>It is our final football season podcast, super Bowl fifty

0:00:24.040 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 1>five megapod um. Yes, the game side, the total, you know,

0:00:29.640 --> 0:00:33.320
<v Speaker 1>there's that, but really mainly your favorite props as well

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>for all of us on the show today for Super

0:00:35.720 --> 0:00:38.080
<v Speaker 1>Bowl fifty five has always joined here live at the

0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:41.240
<v Speaker 1>D are wonderful hosts all season long by Derek Stevens,

0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:45.600
<v Speaker 1>Conciliary Vice President Operations at Circuit Sports, Michael Palm, also

0:00:46.240 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>the co host of The Nuts. Very exciting times, very

0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:52.239
<v Speaker 1>very exciting. We're finding our way in the wilderness. But

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 1>thank you gall a great season again and we got

0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:57.200
<v Speaker 1>to be here at Bar Canada. We did we read

0:00:57.280 --> 0:00:59.560
<v Speaker 1>the Great Benefits of I Heart and so I mean

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:02.920
<v Speaker 1>it's win win all around. I mean, what's what's there

0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>not to like? Ye? By the way, can I just

0:01:05.480 --> 0:01:08.440
<v Speaker 1>say we have loved coming to the D. It is honestly,

0:01:08.440 --> 0:01:12.280
<v Speaker 1>I did a podcast for nine years before this where

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.320
<v Speaker 1>I had to edit everything meticulously, So for me personally

0:01:15.360 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>being able to do this live is like a dream

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:20.880
<v Speaker 1>come true. So thank you. We love having We're never

0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.680
<v Speaker 1>leaving but that's okay, Okay, that's all right. You guys

0:01:23.680 --> 0:01:25.680
<v Speaker 1>can go over to circle. We're just gonna be here anyhow.

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm here more than I'm there. I love this table. Well,

0:01:28.480 --> 0:01:31.680
<v Speaker 1>this is like this was built before we ever heard

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 1>of COVID, but it's was built for COVID. I mean,

0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>it's the perfectly social distance place. And then the table

0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:40.319
<v Speaker 1>is shaped like Captain America's shield or Iron Man shield

0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:42.959
<v Speaker 1>or something. Maybe Todd wish it from his mom's cork

0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:46.919
<v Speaker 1>addic somewhere in uh Pardner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Todd wishing

0:01:46.920 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>that the subject of Bill Crackenburger and I roasting him

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:51.320
<v Speaker 1>this morning on a numbers game. How you doing, Dotty?

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:56.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm doing great. I cannot wait for the big college

0:01:56.920 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>basketball matchups on Sunday. Is there another game as well?

0:01:59.640 --> 0:02:01.920
<v Speaker 1>There is there's a football game yet to be played.

0:02:02.040 --> 0:02:05.000
<v Speaker 1>I've just heard uh and uh. We've always we said

0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:06.960
<v Speaker 1>during the post season, we just want the all stars

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:10.120
<v Speaker 1>from the regular season back. This is my old friend.

0:02:10.320 --> 0:02:13.200
<v Speaker 1>He's an all star not only in sports betting, but

0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>in my heart. Ladies and gentlemen, Dr Bob Stole from Colorado,

0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:21.720
<v Speaker 1>how are you doing Bobby, you completely Gil, Well, thank you.

0:02:22.040 --> 0:02:26.960
<v Speaker 1>I appreciate that I'm doing well. Actually, um an epic

0:02:27.120 --> 0:02:31.080
<v Speaker 1>NFL season. As you know, you get to play out

0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:35.120
<v Speaker 1>of variability in that seven is so once in a

0:02:35.160 --> 0:02:39.040
<v Speaker 1>once in a lifetime sort of season nine, and you

0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:42.320
<v Speaker 1>did not participate in any season long handicapping contest. Right,

0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:47.800
<v Speaker 1>I did win my pool among my friends. There you go,

0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:49.920
<v Speaker 1>not exactly what I was referring to, but you want

0:02:49.960 --> 0:02:54.680
<v Speaker 1>your pool among your friends hauled in. I don't know

0:02:55.200 --> 0:02:59.640
<v Speaker 1>even that anybody paid me eleven United States dollars if

0:02:59.639 --> 0:03:01.919
<v Speaker 1>your friend spay you. What was the winning numb ruining

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:06.920
<v Speaker 1>record for Circle millions? Do you remember it was? It

0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:11.760
<v Speaker 1>was like, yeah, it came in. No, not seven was

0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 1>sixty seven. The change sixty seven and change was the percentage. So, Bob,

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:18.800
<v Speaker 1>basically what we're saying is you would have been vying

0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:23.320
<v Speaker 1>for the top spot. Perhaps, yes, perhaps, but yeah you

0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 1>would have to play five a week, yes, totals, So yeah,

0:03:28.200 --> 0:03:35.360
<v Speaker 1>that's true. You got Yeah, but then you know I

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:37.720
<v Speaker 1>had to throw in some some other plays and he

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.760
<v Speaker 1>knows how those would have gone. But my other pool

0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:44.480
<v Speaker 1>I was pent. I think end of the season, I

0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:48.600
<v Speaker 1>had to pick ten games a week. Ouch. Wow, all right, well,

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:50.440
<v Speaker 1>it's just either way, it's an epic season. Maybe you

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:52.560
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't have competed in circle because the format is specific,

0:03:52.600 --> 0:03:56.760
<v Speaker 1>but an epic epic season. Um, and your basketball seasons

0:03:56.800 --> 0:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>have gotten off to an okay star Yeah, okay, the

0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:03.320
<v Speaker 1>the opinions have done better than the best bets and

0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 1>seven and fourteen on close games, you know, decide about

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>less than three points, so I have a little bit

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:15.440
<v Speaker 1>of negative luck in there, but overall best bets are pent.

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 1>The opinions are are better than that fifty five or

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:21.320
<v Speaker 1>fifty six percent. Overall the models doing okay. The luck

0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:22.960
<v Speaker 1>on close games is sort of dragged me down a

0:04:23.000 --> 0:04:25.320
<v Speaker 1>little bit, but still some season less I expect to

0:04:25.520 --> 0:04:28.359
<v Speaker 1>be profitable by the end of the year. Right, better

0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:30.559
<v Speaker 1>on the opinions, you should be more opinionated then, Bob,

0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:34.000
<v Speaker 1>I suppose so, since it's been a topsy turvy year

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:37.640
<v Speaker 1>in college I was basketball. But then again I won

0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:39.599
<v Speaker 1>more close games and I lost in the NFL, and

0:04:39.640 --> 0:04:41.559
<v Speaker 1>the opinions didn't do as well as the best bets.

0:04:42.800 --> 0:04:46.440
<v Speaker 1>That works out? Okay, all right, guys, Because people are

0:04:46.440 --> 0:04:49.560
<v Speaker 1>waiting for props, let's talk about just super Bowl fifty five.

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 1>The game line itself, the money line, the total to

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>see if we have any bets there. Kansas City right

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 1>now as we do this Thursday morning, three point favorites

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:02.000
<v Speaker 1>over the Buccaneers extra a juice. There have been some

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:03.640
<v Speaker 1>three and a half that pop up. They have quickly

0:05:03.720 --> 0:05:05.520
<v Speaker 1>gone back to three. Don't know where this is going

0:05:05.560 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>to be by the end. The total moved a bit yesterday,

0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>about a half a point or even a point in

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:14.039
<v Speaker 1>some spots. Even so fifty five and a half pop

0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:17.119
<v Speaker 1>pop up in some spots off shore, and I guess

0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:19.640
<v Speaker 1>it was because there was more of a percentage chance

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 1>of thunderstorms. And as as we talked about a lot

0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 1>rain go ahead, well there was and rain, Matt. If

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:30.520
<v Speaker 1>it's full on rain the entire game that worth three

0:05:30.560 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 1>points um and there was I think that the percentage

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:35.880
<v Speaker 1>went up to in the mid thirties yesterday. Now it's

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:38.279
<v Speaker 1>back down into the high teams a chance of rain.

0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:40.960
<v Speaker 1>So maybe that's why the total pop back up fifty six.

0:05:41.720 --> 0:05:46.640
<v Speaker 1>It looks like the probability of rain is becoming less, yes,

0:05:48.040 --> 0:05:50.640
<v Speaker 1>but you know that could change. It's weather and winds.

0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:53.440
<v Speaker 1>It's weather. Whether I don't know if if anybody knows

0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:56.800
<v Speaker 1>this not an exact science predicting weather, it matters more

0:05:56.839 --> 0:06:00.200
<v Speaker 1>and there but six seven mile winds expected solf Uh,

0:06:00.360 --> 0:06:02.080
<v Speaker 1>it might as well be zero if it's going to

0:06:02.160 --> 0:06:05.440
<v Speaker 1>be that. Uh. Did you play anything on the total

0:06:05.720 --> 0:06:07.359
<v Speaker 1>or the spread or the money line? Did you do

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:10.760
<v Speaker 1>anything with the Big three? Bob uh No? I have

0:06:10.839 --> 0:06:14.280
<v Speaker 1>a lean with Tampa Bay, but no personal bets, no

0:06:14.440 --> 0:06:17.279
<v Speaker 1>recommended bets. Okay um. I will tell you that I

0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>had Chiefs futures. I forgot that I had Chiefs futures.

0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>At the end of the Chiefs Bills game. I quickly

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.279
<v Speaker 1>raced the bet Kansas City minus three. I'm like, why

0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:29.000
<v Speaker 1>I do that I have Chiefs futures? Uh. I am

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:32.239
<v Speaker 1>waiting though, for what I typically do in the Super Bowl.

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>The public, for whatever reason, bets dogs during the Super

0:06:36.800 --> 0:06:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Bowl differently than they do dogs in the regular season.

0:06:39.360 --> 0:06:41.479
<v Speaker 1>Regular season, they take them with the points. I don't

0:06:41.480 --> 0:06:43.599
<v Speaker 1>know if it's because it's the last Hurrah, whatever, but

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:46.400
<v Speaker 1>they tend to play the dog on the money line,

0:06:46.400 --> 0:06:49.400
<v Speaker 1>which artificially will mute the favorite on the money line.

0:06:49.680 --> 0:06:52.360
<v Speaker 1>For instance, New England against Atlanta some years ago. Three

0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:54.800
<v Speaker 1>years ago, you even got New England in the minus

0:06:54.839 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>one forties as a three three and a half point favorite.

0:06:58.120 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that Kansas City will go this far down.

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Who knows if they'll even go down to minus one

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:03.919
<v Speaker 1>fifty or minus one five. But I'm also looking to

0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:06.160
<v Speaker 1>wait for that. So you did bet the Chiefs did

0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:09.240
<v Speaker 1>forgetting you had the futures? Yes, like an idiots, only

0:07:09.320 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>futures were Super Bowl, not a f C. I had

0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>a f C two. Yeah, yeah, I did in November,

0:07:15.240 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>late November. What what was your number on Super Bowl?

0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:21.239
<v Speaker 1>Plus two forty something? I believe, let me check that. Actually,

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:23.239
<v Speaker 1>I'll tell you exactly what it wants. Got some interesting

0:07:23.280 --> 0:07:26.280
<v Speaker 1>end game opportunities with Tampa. Then what did you? Did

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:29.960
<v Speaker 1>you do anything within? I laid three minus one fifteen. Um,

0:07:30.000 --> 0:07:32.960
<v Speaker 1>I was minus one nineteen. Yeah, three minus one fifteen

0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>is what I laid. I liked the Chiefs in this matchup,

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 1>not a lot. It's not a big bet. I just think, boy,

0:07:37.840 --> 0:07:44.320
<v Speaker 1>it's this is a historically good offense. And can you compare?

0:07:44.360 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 1>And I can ask Dr Bob this question. Can you

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:50.560
<v Speaker 1>compare the Buccaneers defensive this year to the forty Niners

0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:53.440
<v Speaker 1>defensive last year? I mean when you think about that

0:07:53.520 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 1>Super Bowl, the forty niners, even they held the Chiefs

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:57.680
<v Speaker 1>to ten points through three quarters, right, And I mean

0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:02.120
<v Speaker 1>it's similar. There's our strong defensive line. They don't need

0:08:02.160 --> 0:08:06.360
<v Speaker 1>to blitz. The first meeting. They only blitz eighteen percent

0:08:06.360 --> 0:08:08.840
<v Speaker 1>of the time in Tampa Bay normally a blitzing team

0:08:08.920 --> 0:08:12.200
<v Speaker 1>in the high thirties and and blitz rate. They didn't

0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:15.880
<v Speaker 1>blitz them much in the first matchup. I don't think

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:19.040
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna blitz them much here in Kansas City's offensive

0:08:19.080 --> 0:08:22.880
<v Speaker 1>line is worse now without Fisher. They move the right

0:08:22.920 --> 0:08:25.160
<v Speaker 1>tackle over to take the left tackle, but the backup

0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:29.720
<v Speaker 1>right tackle we've guts playing right tackle now is not good. Um,

0:08:29.800 --> 0:08:33.480
<v Speaker 1>So you know there dot to have a good game. UM.

0:08:33.520 --> 0:08:35.040
<v Speaker 1>I think they're gonna be able to get pressure on

0:08:35.080 --> 0:08:36.760
<v Speaker 1>them just with the four man front, so they don't

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:39.480
<v Speaker 1>need to blitz a lot. Um. If you want to

0:08:39.480 --> 0:08:42.840
<v Speaker 1>talk more about the matchup, I think the biggest difference

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.280
<v Speaker 1>between this game in the Week twelve game is that

0:08:46.840 --> 0:08:50.200
<v Speaker 1>Carlton Davis had the guard iree kill in the first game.

0:08:50.240 --> 0:08:53.520
<v Speaker 1>And Carlton Davis is a very good just not a

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.760
<v Speaker 1>fast cornerback. Uh. He has you know, I'm out of

0:08:56.760 --> 0:08:59.080
<v Speaker 1>four or five at the combine. You know, when he

0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:01.120
<v Speaker 1>came out of college at which is slower than average

0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:04.280
<v Speaker 1>for a NFL defensive you know, for a cornerback, he

0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:06.480
<v Speaker 1>had no chance of keeping up with Tyreek Hill in

0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:09.200
<v Speaker 1>that first matchup. Remember Jamale Dean was out of that game,

0:09:09.200 --> 0:09:13.240
<v Speaker 1>and Jamal Dean has eleaked speed or three in a

0:09:13.400 --> 0:09:16.360
<v Speaker 1>very good corner So there's no way. I just can't

0:09:16.360 --> 0:09:19.000
<v Speaker 1>imagine they're gonna have Davis on Tyreek killing. I remember

0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Tyreek Hill had over twound receiving yards in the first

0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:23.079
<v Speaker 1>half of that game. Then no one who can keep

0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:25.440
<v Speaker 1>up with his speed. Well, now they have Jamal Dean,

0:09:25.880 --> 0:09:27.760
<v Speaker 1>who was one of the fastest corners in the league,

0:09:27.760 --> 0:09:31.840
<v Speaker 1>in a very good cornerback. He'll be probably taking Tyreek

0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:33.679
<v Speaker 1>hille and I'll have you know, over the top help

0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:36.079
<v Speaker 1>because they won't have to blitz as much with the

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, Can City's offensive line problems. But I think

0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:41.120
<v Speaker 1>it's a totally different matchup. I don't think he'll's gonna

0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:45.320
<v Speaker 1>go nuts. Um uh, half a baby's got you know,

0:09:45.320 --> 0:09:49.640
<v Speaker 1>they're good at defending tight ends. Um, So Kelsey might

0:09:49.640 --> 0:09:52.240
<v Speaker 1>be held in check a little bit now they have

0:09:52.240 --> 0:09:55.760
<v Speaker 1>a good slot corner. I think that the matchup is

0:09:55.760 --> 0:09:58.760
<v Speaker 1>completely different this time. The fact that Hans City only

0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:01.439
<v Speaker 1>won that game by three first time around. I think

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:03.760
<v Speaker 1>the matchups this time around favorite Tampa Bay a little

0:10:03.800 --> 0:10:05.839
<v Speaker 1>bit more. Kansas City way up at that game and

0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:07.640
<v Speaker 1>then they ended up winning by three. Yeah, they were

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:09.360
<v Speaker 1>untill that's part of it. I mean they might have

0:10:09.440 --> 0:10:13.840
<v Speaker 1>kept the down had, you know, had they not been

0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:16.520
<v Speaker 1>up seventeen to nothing early, So who knows what would

0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 1>have happened. And um but I do think the matchup

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:22.440
<v Speaker 1>I think that Jamal Dean, that's a huge difference. There's

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:24.400
<v Speaker 1>no way Davis is going to be on the hill again.

0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Bowls is not gonna stud enough to do that again.

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:29.480
<v Speaker 1>Um So I think it's a It's something that's not

0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 1>even time watching Get Up every morning. No one's talked

0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:34.400
<v Speaker 1>about it. They're just talking about how Carlton, how how

0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:36.760
<v Speaker 1>he got toasted the first time by by He's not

0:10:36.800 --> 0:10:39.040
<v Speaker 1>even be on him this time. I can't imagine that

0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:43.760
<v Speaker 1>they wouldn't have Dean on the hill. So completely different matchup.

0:10:44.320 --> 0:10:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Excellent point, great points, Yeah, great, great points. Are you

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:50.720
<v Speaker 1>excited about this year's Super Bowl? And I asked us,

0:10:50.720 --> 0:10:55.480
<v Speaker 1>till all three of you yes, I mean, you know,

0:10:55.600 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>ready for the game to be played, quite frankly excited

0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:02.040
<v Speaker 1>by the matchup. Yes, yes, yeah, you excited to watch

0:11:02.080 --> 0:11:06.080
<v Speaker 1>it and gilmos. In the past, my excitement came from

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:12.760
<v Speaker 1>hosting a very good Super Bowl party with many people,

0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:16.959
<v Speaker 1>uh from the Bay from San Francisco in my little

0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:23.559
<v Speaker 1>apartment and food flowing Margarita's the bartending. In the past,

0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:26.400
<v Speaker 1>I spent most my time mixing drinks and didn't really

0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:28.559
<v Speaker 1>get to watch the game as intently as I do now,

0:11:29.000 --> 0:11:32.440
<v Speaker 1>being a father of two little ones living in the

0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.600
<v Speaker 1>Denver area with no Super Bowl parties, so I'm looking

0:11:35.600 --> 0:11:38.680
<v Speaker 1>forward to watching the game as opposed to posting the game.

0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:41.240
<v Speaker 1>Some of us met our girlfriends at Dr Bob super

0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:46.480
<v Speaker 1>Bowl parties, that kind of thing, that's true legacy. So

0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:49.319
<v Speaker 1>you had Gil showed up, just just sitting up, just

0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:53.320
<v Speaker 1>standing ending in one corner. The single ladies were at

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 1>the bar near me, and after the party was over,

0:11:57.080 --> 0:11:59.200
<v Speaker 1>I got word that one of them was interested in

0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:03.760
<v Speaker 1>meeting Gil. It was not Gil's girlfriend, Yeah it was.

0:12:04.120 --> 0:12:07.000
<v Speaker 1>It was Gil's girlfriend's friend, and girls like, oh, not

0:12:07.040 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 1>really interested in her, but who's her? Friend one passing

0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 1>information on and there was a mutual interest. Uh, this

0:12:15.120 --> 0:12:20.400
<v Speaker 1>is what seven years ago? This was like Seattle. Yeah, yeah,

0:12:20.400 --> 0:12:23.080
<v Speaker 1>back when I was young and pretty much that's the

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:26.080
<v Speaker 1>first year my wife made our Super Bowl party. That's right.

0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:29.280
<v Speaker 1>I bet a nickel on the Chief's MINDUS three minus

0:12:30.240 --> 0:12:35.960
<v Speaker 1>plus two on November. That's very nice. Thank you very much, Todd.

0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:40.120
<v Speaker 1>Do you have anything on this game? Yeah, I I

0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 1>actually think it's the well. First, I don't really love

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:46.200
<v Speaker 1>doing the props because I feel like, and I feel

0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:49.520
<v Speaker 1>this way in all NFL games for that matter, when

0:12:49.520 --> 0:12:52.080
<v Speaker 1>you're doing props, you're kind of taking a side in

0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:54.120
<v Speaker 1>a sense, because you've got to come up with what

0:12:54.240 --> 0:12:57.480
<v Speaker 1>you think is going to happen in the game. Yeah,

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:00.520
<v Speaker 1>I would miss much rather play in game where I

0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.080
<v Speaker 1>feel like you have the better chance in in anything,

0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 1>um in NFL, you know, related stuff. So I'm just

0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:07.920
<v Speaker 1>probably gonna play this like a regular game. But I

0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:10.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't I don't think this is really going to

0:13:10.400 --> 0:13:12.679
<v Speaker 1>be necessarily a close game. The last time these two

0:13:12.679 --> 0:13:16.280
<v Speaker 1>teams played, it was not a close game. Is completely

0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:19.480
<v Speaker 1>not indicative of what the score was. It was seventeen nothing. Early.

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:22.320
<v Speaker 1>I went back and looked because I remember the game

0:13:22.559 --> 0:13:25.840
<v Speaker 1>pretty well. The first six out of seven Chiefs drives

0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:28.600
<v Speaker 1>ended in either points or a long drive in a fumble.

0:13:28.920 --> 0:13:31.240
<v Speaker 1>So it was the same as every other Kansas City game.

0:13:31.280 --> 0:13:33.839
<v Speaker 1>When they're trying in the beginning, you know they're going

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:35.720
<v Speaker 1>to just do whatever they want. I don't care who's

0:13:35.720 --> 0:13:38.559
<v Speaker 1>guarding who. I don't care about Tyreek Hill or whoever.

0:13:38.600 --> 0:13:40.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean not to say that that's not a good analysis,

0:13:40.840 --> 0:13:43.679
<v Speaker 1>Dr Bob. They just have too much weapons. They just

0:13:44.040 --> 0:13:48.600
<v Speaker 1>have too many weapons, So I don't care who's guarding who.

0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:50.960
<v Speaker 1>You can go get the All Star team and try

0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 1>to guard them. You can't guard this team. This team

0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:57.560
<v Speaker 1>is impossible. They can score whenever they want. Look at

0:13:57.559 --> 0:14:00.439
<v Speaker 1>the Bills game, it was exactly the same scenario. Remember

0:14:00.559 --> 0:14:01.920
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks ago we talked about this. I

0:14:01.960 --> 0:14:03.880
<v Speaker 1>said the Kansas City could have won that game by

0:14:03.880 --> 0:14:05.880
<v Speaker 1>a hundred if they wanted to. And what did they

0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:08.560
<v Speaker 1>do in the playoff game? Same thing. I really think

0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay if you look at their games, they didn't

0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:14.000
<v Speaker 1>play well at all in the last nine weeks. They

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:17.720
<v Speaker 1>lost to the Rams, lost to Kansas City, Minnesota. They

0:14:17.760 --> 0:14:20.600
<v Speaker 1>beat because the Minnesota guy missed about a hundred field goals.

0:14:20.840 --> 0:14:23.480
<v Speaker 1>The Atlanta game, they were down by seventeen, came back

0:14:23.480 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 1>in one. Okay, they killed Detroit. Everyone does that. Who cares?

0:14:26.960 --> 0:14:29.480
<v Speaker 1>The next Atlanta game was closed for a little while.

0:14:29.800 --> 0:14:33.280
<v Speaker 1>Tyler Henneck or Taylor Henneck scored twenty three on them.

0:14:33.440 --> 0:14:36.040
<v Speaker 1>New Orleans had no business losing the game. The guy

0:14:36.080 --> 0:14:38.840
<v Speaker 1>fumbles at the fifty yard line. Otherwise New Orleans wins

0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:41.000
<v Speaker 1>that game. Green Bay could have won the game. Now,

0:14:41.200 --> 0:14:42.960
<v Speaker 1>I'll give him credit. They did a great job on

0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 1>defense against Green Bay. But Tom Brady's throwing interceptions like

0:14:46.560 --> 0:14:49.000
<v Speaker 1>it's going out of style here. You better play a

0:14:49.080 --> 0:14:51.560
<v Speaker 1>perfect damn game if you're gonna beat the Kansas ce Chiefs.

0:14:51.680 --> 0:14:53.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't see that having it in him. I don't

0:14:53.680 --> 0:14:55.440
<v Speaker 1>like to bet pregame, but if I was gonna bet

0:14:55.440 --> 0:14:58.800
<v Speaker 1>pregame Kansas City minus three, I mean, this is ridiculous

0:14:58.840 --> 0:15:01.880
<v Speaker 1>to me. I I just don't see it. I think

0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay is a slightly above average I mean slightly

0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:08.160
<v Speaker 1>above above average team. I don't think there are anything special.

0:15:08.280 --> 0:15:10.480
<v Speaker 1>And to compare them to San Francisco of last year,

0:15:10.560 --> 0:15:13.880
<v Speaker 1>San Francisco defense were monsters last year. This Tampa Bay

0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:16.880
<v Speaker 1>defense is not Taylor Henneck was moving all over them.

0:15:17.000 --> 0:15:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Taylor Henneck or where maybe I'm not even saying his

0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:22.880
<v Speaker 1>name right, whatever, what about Taylor Heineke. How do you

0:15:22.920 --> 0:15:27.320
<v Speaker 1>do that guy? That guy was going all over this defense.

0:15:27.360 --> 0:15:29.680
<v Speaker 1>So give me a break. Andy Reid will figure out

0:15:29.680 --> 0:15:31.640
<v Speaker 1>how to block the damn guys. I know there's the

0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:34.800
<v Speaker 1>left tackles at it. It's a disaster. The world is ending,

0:15:34.840 --> 0:15:37.520
<v Speaker 1>the left tackles out. No, Andy Reid will figure it out.

0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:44.440
<v Speaker 1>Kansas City chiefs three dr Kansas City's one and one

0:15:44.480 --> 0:15:48.000
<v Speaker 1>when Fish is playing in three and three when he's not. Now,

0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:50.680
<v Speaker 1>that's obviously a small circle. But I mean the left

0:15:50.720 --> 0:15:54.920
<v Speaker 1>tackles were point eight points and in the analysis done.

0:15:55.400 --> 0:15:59.160
<v Speaker 1>Um so yeah, it's not the end of the world. Um,

0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:02.400
<v Speaker 1>But you know you're making the case of well, Tampa

0:16:02.440 --> 0:16:04.280
<v Speaker 1>Bay could have lost that game, and they could have

0:16:04.360 --> 0:16:07.760
<v Speaker 1>lost that game. Said that every week about Kansas City

0:16:07.760 --> 0:16:10.480
<v Speaker 1>in the second half of the season could have lost

0:16:10.520 --> 0:16:12.720
<v Speaker 1>that every game was closed, They could have lost a lot. Again,

0:16:12.800 --> 0:16:15.400
<v Speaker 1>you can't play that could have lost for Tampa Bay

0:16:15.400 --> 0:16:17.880
<v Speaker 1>and not play the same game for Kansas City. But

0:16:18.040 --> 0:16:20.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you because the

0:16:20.800 --> 0:16:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Kansas City games they were toying with people. They never

0:16:25.880 --> 0:16:30.000
<v Speaker 1>were really endangered. That was playing with people. I don't

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:32.560
<v Speaker 1>think I don't think that's true with people. Well, can

0:16:32.600 --> 0:16:35.440
<v Speaker 1>I chime in Kansas City? Can I? Can I chime

0:16:35.480 --> 0:16:38.760
<v Speaker 1>in here? Because Aaron shots Uh, the creator of Football Outsiders,

0:16:38.760 --> 0:16:42.160
<v Speaker 1>was on this podcast right after Week fourteen, in the

0:16:42.160 --> 0:16:44.360
<v Speaker 1>middle of December. We had him on We're in the

0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:48.600
<v Speaker 1>Fourth Square, and I had the audacity to say again,

0:16:48.760 --> 0:16:51.240
<v Speaker 1>it was right after the Miami game where Kansas City

0:16:51.320 --> 0:16:53.360
<v Speaker 1>ended up winning, I think by three or four points,

0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:55.840
<v Speaker 1>but they outscored Miami thirty to three and the second

0:16:55.840 --> 0:16:58.240
<v Speaker 1>and third quarter, and I said, famous lead to Aaron,

0:16:58.480 --> 0:17:00.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's like they just have a on off switch.

0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:04.080
<v Speaker 1>And Aaron immediately admonished me and said, you're just saying

0:17:04.080 --> 0:17:06.160
<v Speaker 1>that because it's Kansas City. If it were any other team,

0:17:06.160 --> 0:17:08.760
<v Speaker 1>he wouldn't make that subjective comment. And I acknowledge at

0:17:08.760 --> 0:17:11.119
<v Speaker 1>the time that there was some subjectivity to it. But

0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:13.280
<v Speaker 1>I had an air it on yesterday on a Numbers

0:17:13.320 --> 0:17:14.960
<v Speaker 1>game on Visa and the very first thing I asked

0:17:15.000 --> 0:17:18.320
<v Speaker 1>and I played that video of us from several weeks ago,

0:17:19.080 --> 0:17:21.160
<v Speaker 1>and I said, what do you think now, and he said,

0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:24.080
<v Speaker 1>it's funny you bring that up. He actually did some

0:17:24.119 --> 0:17:27.719
<v Speaker 1>analysis on that, and he has been convinced. He's like,

0:17:27.880 --> 0:17:30.480
<v Speaker 1>two things would happen if that were true. One that

0:17:30.560 --> 0:17:32.960
<v Speaker 1>they would all of a sudden play really badly when

0:17:32.960 --> 0:17:35.600
<v Speaker 1>they were way ahead, and two they would step it

0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:39.560
<v Speaker 1>up during the postseason. And actually, by his but by

0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.600
<v Speaker 1>his numbers, he was like, actually, both of those things happened,

0:17:43.000 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 1>and he went back to every Kansas City lead where

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:48.920
<v Speaker 1>they just absolutely just like miserably stopped playing football on

0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:51.240
<v Speaker 1>both sides of the ball, and in the playoffs, by

0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:53.919
<v Speaker 1>his dv Oway, by his by his preparatory stats, he

0:17:54.000 --> 0:17:56.119
<v Speaker 1>really feels they have played some of their best games.

0:17:56.359 --> 0:18:00.119
<v Speaker 1>So I mean to Todd's points, First, Tampa Bay, know

0:18:00.160 --> 0:18:02.160
<v Speaker 1>what the yards per play was in the first Tampa

0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:06.200
<v Speaker 1>Bay Kansas City game, seven point six to seven point five.

0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:08.760
<v Speaker 1>So the stats people will tell you, oh, this was

0:18:08.800 --> 0:18:11.560
<v Speaker 1>a close game. It was not a close game. It

0:18:11.680 --> 0:18:14.880
<v Speaker 1>wasn't even it was It was the exact Kansas City

0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:18.240
<v Speaker 1>replica of every game this year. They get way ahead,

0:18:18.560 --> 0:18:21.600
<v Speaker 1>they start messing around and just running the ball and

0:18:21.680 --> 0:18:23.840
<v Speaker 1>not trying anymore the way they would be trying if

0:18:23.840 --> 0:18:26.199
<v Speaker 1>it was a close game. So, in my opinion, you

0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:29.120
<v Speaker 1>had there's so much garbage and sit in Kansas City

0:18:29.160 --> 0:18:32.960
<v Speaker 1>statistics that it can ruin models. In my opinion, they're

0:18:33.000 --> 0:18:35.880
<v Speaker 1>they're the most susceptible to model ruining. And the first

0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay game was a perfect example of that game.

0:18:38.720 --> 0:18:40.760
<v Speaker 1>There was there was no chance Tom Brady could win

0:18:40.800 --> 0:18:42.920
<v Speaker 1>that game. It was a joke that game. D v

0:18:43.040 --> 0:18:44.720
<v Speaker 1>O A to your to your side of things, Bob.

0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:47.800
<v Speaker 1>Though Aaron has had Tampa Bay rated much higher than

0:18:47.840 --> 0:18:51.560
<v Speaker 1>most all year long. Um, so you know he's by

0:18:51.600 --> 0:18:53.240
<v Speaker 1>the way, he's on Tampa Bay plus three and a

0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:56.480
<v Speaker 1>half himself in this game. But anyway, I just wanted

0:18:56.480 --> 0:18:58.680
<v Speaker 1>to point out because that's an interesting discussion where Aaron,

0:18:58.880 --> 0:19:00.959
<v Speaker 1>even Aaron within a there too, he's sort of like

0:19:01.000 --> 0:19:03.840
<v Speaker 1>he's like, yo, I might have been wrong about that. So,

0:19:04.119 --> 0:19:08.520
<v Speaker 1>by the way the model that our model here uses,

0:19:10.480 --> 0:19:14.080
<v Speaker 1>it weighs stats is played by play. Matrics only actually

0:19:14.080 --> 0:19:15.359
<v Speaker 1>get from the play that play did it. But it

0:19:15.400 --> 0:19:19.080
<v Speaker 1>weighs the stats in competitive parts of the game more

0:19:19.160 --> 0:19:23.399
<v Speaker 1>than it does in less competitive parts. Are in the

0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:26.280
<v Speaker 1>fourth quarter when the game's out of reach, so it's

0:19:26.320 --> 0:19:28.639
<v Speaker 1>it's factored out a lot of that garbage time stuff.

0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:30.480
<v Speaker 1>So Kansas City is the top rated team in my

0:19:30.560 --> 0:19:32.919
<v Speaker 1>model too, and it's part of that is because we

0:19:33.520 --> 0:19:35.640
<v Speaker 1>factors out a lot of those, you know, the garbage

0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.679
<v Speaker 1>time stuff. But not every close game was was a

0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:41.680
<v Speaker 1>big lead where they you know, gave up points late.

0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:43.240
<v Speaker 1>A lot of those they came from behind to win,

0:19:43.680 --> 0:19:45.400
<v Speaker 1>and they're still the best team in the league. I'm

0:19:45.440 --> 0:19:49.160
<v Speaker 1>not arguing I think Tampa Bay is better than Yeah,

0:19:49.160 --> 0:19:52.399
<v Speaker 1>well obviously, I think the oddsmakers are given them credit

0:19:52.920 --> 0:19:55.359
<v Speaker 1>only three point un at all. You know, I think,

0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:57.639
<v Speaker 1>you know, the fair line is probably two point six

0:19:58.240 --> 0:20:00.439
<v Speaker 1>based on the math I'm doing. So it's not like

0:20:00.480 --> 0:20:03.880
<v Speaker 1>it's a ridiculous you know, like I'm jumping all over

0:20:03.920 --> 0:20:05.800
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay here. I'm not. I just I just lean

0:20:05.840 --> 0:20:07.880
<v Speaker 1>with Tampa Bay. I think the matchups are pretty favorable,

0:20:07.920 --> 0:20:13.480
<v Speaker 1>and the model leans with Tampa Bay. So so calm down,

0:20:13.240 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, Bob one second, Bob can be right and

0:20:16.760 --> 0:20:20.399
<v Speaker 1>I can also be right just because Bob, just because

0:20:20.440 --> 0:20:24.520
<v Speaker 1>Bob in this particular scenario, look, his stats will will

0:20:24.960 --> 0:20:27.320
<v Speaker 1>work out for him. As you can hear by his

0:20:27.400 --> 0:20:31.040
<v Speaker 1>record in this year's NFL, his statistical modeling is obviously

0:20:31.080 --> 0:20:33.720
<v Speaker 1>good enough to be winning. It doesn't mean he's going

0:20:33.800 --> 0:20:36.200
<v Speaker 1>to be right in every scenario. That's you know, That's

0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:38.160
<v Speaker 1>all I'm saying. And I think we can all agree

0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:41.239
<v Speaker 1>on that. What do you say that, Bob, No one

0:20:41.400 --> 0:20:44.240
<v Speaker 1>is you have a you have a you know, at

0:20:44.840 --> 0:20:49.840
<v Speaker 1>chance to be right in this case. That's right. But

0:20:49.960 --> 0:20:52.960
<v Speaker 1>I will take I will take exception with the fact

0:20:53.040 --> 0:20:56.720
<v Speaker 1>that I do believe Kansas City. While the game's looked

0:20:56.760 --> 0:20:59.320
<v Speaker 1>close in a lot of scenarios, you can go through

0:20:59.440 --> 0:21:01.960
<v Speaker 1>all the games and you can see that there was

0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:05.000
<v Speaker 1>something going on with the exception of the Atlanta Falcons game,

0:21:05.240 --> 0:21:07.760
<v Speaker 1>I'll give you that one. But New Orleans was thirty

0:21:07.760 --> 0:21:10.880
<v Speaker 1>twenty nine. That was not a close game. The Miami

0:21:10.920 --> 0:21:13.400
<v Speaker 1>game was thirty three, twenty seven, not a close game.

0:21:13.600 --> 0:21:16.919
<v Speaker 1>Denver game before that sixteen, not a close game. Tampa

0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Bay game we already talked about, not a close game.

0:21:19.119 --> 0:21:21.679
<v Speaker 1>Vegas thirty five thirty one. Vegas was actually giving them

0:21:21.680 --> 0:21:23.639
<v Speaker 1>a little bit of trouble that game. Uh you know,

0:21:23.640 --> 0:21:25.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean, you can go back through all these games.

0:21:25.920 --> 0:21:29.760
<v Speaker 1>The Buffalo first game, people say, oh, it's only seventeen. No,

0:21:30.000 --> 0:21:31.720
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't. They could have won that game by a

0:21:31.760 --> 0:21:34.160
<v Speaker 1>thousand if they wanted so. To me, I think of

0:21:34.200 --> 0:21:36.800
<v Speaker 1>all the teams, you know, I just think that Kansas

0:21:36.840 --> 0:21:40.440
<v Speaker 1>City is gonna be the hardest to clean up statistical

0:21:40.520 --> 0:21:43.840
<v Speaker 1>models than any than almost any team. And I'm sure

0:21:43.920 --> 0:21:46.440
<v Speaker 1>that guys know how to do statistical modeling, like Dr

0:21:46.480 --> 0:21:48.399
<v Speaker 1>Bob know how to do it, but there's probably a

0:21:48.400 --> 0:21:51.000
<v Speaker 1>lot of people that have models that do not know

0:21:51.080 --> 0:21:53.679
<v Speaker 1>how to clean up the dirtiness. You know, like to

0:21:53.760 --> 0:21:57.640
<v Speaker 1>remember the Cleveland Pittsburgh playoff game where Ben Roethlisberger throws

0:21:57.640 --> 0:22:00.600
<v Speaker 1>for five and fifty yards and everyone probably he has

0:22:00.680 --> 0:22:03.520
<v Speaker 1>some semblance of that in their model. Well guess what

0:22:03.920 --> 0:22:06.080
<v Speaker 1>that all that can be thrown away in the garbage.

0:22:06.280 --> 0:22:08.760
<v Speaker 1>Because Cleveland was letting them do whatever they wanted with

0:22:08.840 --> 0:22:11.119
<v Speaker 1>the gigantic lead, you could throw out all of it.

0:22:11.440 --> 0:22:13.920
<v Speaker 1>In my opinion, had the game been ten seven, game

0:22:13.920 --> 0:22:16.960
<v Speaker 1>would have been a completely different game. So, you know, no,

0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:20.400
<v Speaker 1>let me just say go ahead. You know, I understand,

0:22:20.480 --> 0:22:22.959
<v Speaker 1>you know, Kansas City has a switch. I believe that.

0:22:23.040 --> 0:22:25.120
<v Speaker 1>I believe they played better when they need to play better.

0:22:25.160 --> 0:22:26.680
<v Speaker 1>You know who also plays better when he needs to

0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:34.600
<v Speaker 1>play better. Tom Brady from minus two Underdog in his

0:22:34.720 --> 0:22:36.879
<v Speaker 1>career as a as a as a quarterback room so

0:22:36.960 --> 0:22:41.439
<v Speaker 1>competitive games minus two to Underdog's twenty five straight up

0:22:41.760 --> 0:22:44.040
<v Speaker 1>fifty and twenty against his breath eight and three in

0:22:44.080 --> 0:22:46.119
<v Speaker 1>the playoffs two and I was a dog pick in

0:22:46.119 --> 0:22:48.560
<v Speaker 1>the Super Bowl. I mean, he can turn it on

0:22:48.560 --> 0:22:50.359
<v Speaker 1>when he needs to to. I mean, you're making a

0:22:50.440 --> 0:22:54.040
<v Speaker 1>case from malls. Rightfully, did you think they were did

0:22:54.080 --> 0:22:57.640
<v Speaker 1>you think they should have won the Saints game? They

0:22:57.720 --> 0:22:59.879
<v Speaker 1>won the Saints game. There's a lot of games that

0:23:00.520 --> 0:23:03.919
<v Speaker 1>should not have won. Okay, but what I'm saying is

0:23:04.080 --> 0:23:07.200
<v Speaker 1>if you played that game like a hundred times, would

0:23:07.200 --> 0:23:09.600
<v Speaker 1>you say that they were on the more fortunate side?

0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:13.880
<v Speaker 1>They were probably around thirty eight times the wins. Okay,

0:23:14.040 --> 0:23:17.760
<v Speaker 1>they're in the Super Bowl now, Okay, I mean I'm

0:23:17.800 --> 0:23:20.200
<v Speaker 1>not you can't go. Obviously, Kansas City is a better

0:23:20.240 --> 0:23:23.560
<v Speaker 1>team than Tampa Bay, and Tampa Bay's season could have

0:23:23.640 --> 0:23:25.919
<v Speaker 1>easily gone a different way had they not won a

0:23:25.920 --> 0:23:31.119
<v Speaker 1>couple of close games. But they're here, and that's the

0:23:31.160 --> 0:23:34.160
<v Speaker 1>metrics I'm using say it's gonna be you know, due

0:23:34.200 --> 0:23:36.960
<v Speaker 1>to three point game. I mean Obviously there's a lot

0:23:37.000 --> 0:23:39.840
<v Speaker 1>of variants in that, but I think the line is

0:23:39.880 --> 0:23:41.960
<v Speaker 1>shading a little bit higher than it should. I think

0:23:42.080 --> 0:23:44.800
<v Speaker 1>three solid three should be the number I think. I

0:23:44.800 --> 0:23:47.679
<v Speaker 1>think it's an awesome discussion. Mikey and I are enjoying

0:23:48.000 --> 0:23:51.120
<v Speaker 1>listen to It's for Real because it's todd I really

0:23:51.160 --> 0:23:52.800
<v Speaker 1>I get back to what you what you said there.

0:23:53.840 --> 0:23:58.920
<v Speaker 1>We this is a very difficult team when you look

0:23:58.960 --> 0:24:01.840
<v Speaker 1>at them to more more than perhaps any other team.

0:24:01.840 --> 0:24:03.840
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, we'll see maybe historically we'll look back

0:24:03.880 --> 0:24:06.120
<v Speaker 1>on and think this, this version of the Kansas City

0:24:06.200 --> 0:24:10.080
<v Speaker 1>Chiefs might be the dirtiest statistical team ever. To put

0:24:10.119 --> 0:24:12.920
<v Speaker 1>it that way, it's very difficult. And again I love

0:24:13.000 --> 0:24:15.160
<v Speaker 1>that Aaron was able to sort of go back on

0:24:15.200 --> 0:24:17.800
<v Speaker 1>his because he was so he had such strong conviction

0:24:17.840 --> 0:24:21.119
<v Speaker 1>on you can't say that everybody's saying that about the Chiefs.

0:24:21.320 --> 0:24:23.359
<v Speaker 1>And and when he went back and looked at he's like, wow, no,

0:24:23.680 --> 0:24:27.719
<v Speaker 1>off the charts change of behavior for this team in

0:24:27.720 --> 0:24:31.040
<v Speaker 1>an anomalous kind of way, not nor you know, not

0:24:31.119 --> 0:24:33.560
<v Speaker 1>the normal letdown kind of team. So anyway, it's an

0:24:33.560 --> 0:24:36.320
<v Speaker 1>interesting conversation, and one game is not going to decide

0:24:36.320 --> 0:24:40.200
<v Speaker 1>the answer of it. Um, but it's a fascinating discussion.

0:24:40.200 --> 0:24:44.520
<v Speaker 1>I think, um, let's do some props. Otherwise we'll be

0:24:44.520 --> 0:24:46.760
<v Speaker 1>here all day on this. Bob you get, you get honors,

0:24:46.800 --> 0:24:50.120
<v Speaker 1>your honor. Uh you kind last year I was on here,

0:24:50.760 --> 0:24:54.679
<v Speaker 1>I was on your show. Maybe hit them all, hit

0:24:54.720 --> 0:24:57.520
<v Speaker 1>them all. I'm your good luck boy, I'm your good luck.

0:24:59.160 --> 0:25:01.800
<v Speaker 1>I'll props and twenty two and five and I'm rolling

0:25:01.840 --> 0:25:09.600
<v Speaker 1>with four of them. Um, I'm going with Patrick Mahomes

0:25:09.760 --> 0:25:13.640
<v Speaker 1>over and acted twenty one and a half is kind

0:25:13.640 --> 0:25:16.359
<v Speaker 1>of a consensus. It might have moved. I released it

0:25:16.400 --> 0:25:20.600
<v Speaker 1>two clients about an hour and a half ago, hour ago. Um,

0:25:20.800 --> 0:25:23.320
<v Speaker 1>here's the thinking on the Patrick Mahomes over twenty one

0:25:23.320 --> 0:25:25.679
<v Speaker 1>and a half rushing yards up to twenty five and

0:25:25.680 --> 0:25:28.960
<v Speaker 1>a half. So anything and a half or less I

0:25:29.000 --> 0:25:30.560
<v Speaker 1>would I would bet on the over on my homes

0:25:30.680 --> 0:25:34.600
<v Speaker 1>rushing yards. Um. You might remember last year he had

0:25:34.720 --> 0:25:36.760
<v Speaker 1>forty something and then he took three kneel down for

0:25:36.880 --> 0:25:42.439
<v Speaker 1>fifty yards to go under what he needed to. And

0:25:42.600 --> 0:25:44.800
<v Speaker 1>this year, I think he's gonna need to run more.

0:25:44.960 --> 0:25:46.879
<v Speaker 1>I mean I think that Tampa Bay is gonna be

0:25:46.920 --> 0:25:49.879
<v Speaker 1>able to put pressure on him. Uh, they're gonna I

0:25:49.920 --> 0:25:51.760
<v Speaker 1>don't think they're gonna blitz as much. They're gonna have

0:25:51.760 --> 0:25:54.119
<v Speaker 1>more men and coverage, so his receivers are likely to

0:25:54.119 --> 0:25:57.280
<v Speaker 1>be covered a little bit more than normal. And with

0:25:57.359 --> 0:26:00.560
<v Speaker 1>him running around looking for guys with all the defensive

0:26:00.560 --> 0:26:02.199
<v Speaker 1>backs back there, I think he's gonna take off and

0:26:02.280 --> 0:26:05.359
<v Speaker 1>run more than he normally does. Um, so I'm gonna

0:26:05.359 --> 0:26:08.320
<v Speaker 1>go over mahomes rushing yards is my first prop o.

0:26:08.600 --> 0:26:10.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm with Bob on that one. I like. I like

0:26:10.920 --> 0:26:14.720
<v Speaker 1>that one a lot with Bob half census, and I'd

0:26:14.720 --> 0:26:16.400
<v Speaker 1>say the twenty five and a half is still good.

0:26:16.440 --> 0:26:18.639
<v Speaker 1>That Todd is like, I think there's gonna be I

0:26:18.680 --> 0:26:20.400
<v Speaker 1>think there's gonna be a lot of a lot of

0:26:20.640 --> 0:26:23.439
<v Speaker 1>if there's more pressure on my homes, which they're they're

0:26:23.520 --> 0:26:25.399
<v Speaker 1>very well, maybe I I totally agree with that. You

0:26:25.520 --> 0:26:27.159
<v Speaker 1>I could see my homes getting a bunch of like

0:26:27.240 --> 0:26:30.560
<v Speaker 1>nine yard scrambles where he's like in trouble and he

0:26:30.680 --> 0:26:32.760
<v Speaker 1>somehow gets out of it like he always does and

0:26:32.800 --> 0:26:35.159
<v Speaker 1>gets nine yards for the first down. So I like

0:26:35.280 --> 0:26:38.000
<v Speaker 1>that one a lot. Todd is the Darren Ravel of

0:26:38.000 --> 0:26:41.320
<v Speaker 1>this podcast. He's like confirmed, I like that, but please don't,

0:26:41.880 --> 0:26:44.439
<v Speaker 1>please don't compare me with Darren Ravell. Please, you know

0:26:44.800 --> 0:26:47.560
<v Speaker 1>just you can. You can make a lot of jokes,

0:26:47.600 --> 0:26:49.720
<v Speaker 1>but that that is not called for. Have I told

0:26:49.720 --> 0:26:51.480
<v Speaker 1>my Darren Ravell story you're on the show? I think

0:26:52.280 --> 0:26:55.120
<v Speaker 1>tell it again nine years ago, ten years ago, when

0:26:55.119 --> 0:26:56.800
<v Speaker 1>I was a little pitcher and nobody knew who I was.

0:26:56.840 --> 0:26:58.560
<v Speaker 1>They still know who I am, but then they really

0:26:58.600 --> 0:27:00.720
<v Speaker 1>didn't know who I was. I there's something to happen

0:27:00.760 --> 0:27:03.200
<v Speaker 1>with a running back, and on Twitter, not even clever.

0:27:03.680 --> 0:27:05.679
<v Speaker 1>I wrote, Mama, don't let your babies grow up to

0:27:05.680 --> 0:27:08.439
<v Speaker 1>be running backs. Not funny, not clever, just a stupid

0:27:08.440 --> 0:27:11.920
<v Speaker 1>throwaway line. Ten minutes later on Twitter, Darren Orbell Mama,

0:27:11.960 --> 0:27:13.479
<v Speaker 1>don't let your babies grow up to be running back.

0:27:13.480 --> 0:27:19.119
<v Speaker 1>He's a predecessor to Ben Fox. About the people that

0:27:19.200 --> 0:27:25.000
<v Speaker 1>tweeted at Ben Fox, there is aet tweet button likes

0:27:25.040 --> 0:27:28.679
<v Speaker 1>to be on one of the pregame shows. Norm something

0:27:28.880 --> 0:27:31.720
<v Speaker 1>Hitch his sur who was the guy used to be

0:27:31.760 --> 0:27:34.600
<v Speaker 1>on one of the pregame shows years ago, like in

0:27:34.640 --> 0:27:38.680
<v Speaker 1>the nineties. I us to post a newsletter and I'd

0:27:38.720 --> 0:27:42.440
<v Speaker 1>have all these great stats and and things, and then

0:27:42.560 --> 0:27:46.560
<v Speaker 1>he just would quote them verbatim. I had clients, like, even, like,

0:27:47.160 --> 0:27:49.479
<v Speaker 1>this guy's stealing your stuff and I didn't get up

0:27:49.480 --> 0:27:54.680
<v Speaker 1>that early to watch some game shown. Was it pe Dockstown? No,

0:27:54.680 --> 0:27:59.000
<v Speaker 1>that wasn't it was norm something norm Yeah nor h

0:27:59.080 --> 0:28:02.640
<v Speaker 1>I t z G. Yes, Yeah, you were just I mean,

0:28:02.760 --> 0:28:06.760
<v Speaker 1>like blatant stealing of the stuff I'd have in my

0:28:06.880 --> 0:28:10.200
<v Speaker 1>newsletter stats that I have published in my newsletter. People

0:28:10.480 --> 0:28:12.879
<v Speaker 1>and me and Gil came up being Gil had a

0:28:12.920 --> 0:28:16.000
<v Speaker 1>whole segment on me, and Gil had a whole segment

0:28:16.040 --> 0:28:19.040
<v Speaker 1>on a numbers game. And then uh, and then some

0:28:19.160 --> 0:28:21.840
<v Speaker 1>guy I know who goes on fall and show, you know,

0:28:22.080 --> 0:28:25.120
<v Speaker 1>basically renamed it no hyper Bowl and did the same

0:28:25.160 --> 0:28:29.840
<v Speaker 1>exact segment. It's it's very very disconcerted. The gentile version. Yes,

0:28:31.920 --> 0:28:37.280
<v Speaker 1>what is it? Sincereus form of flattery? Yeah, imitation is

0:28:37.280 --> 0:28:39.320
<v Speaker 1>the sincereous form of flattery. That's what I always say.

0:28:39.400 --> 0:28:41.160
<v Speaker 1>I happen to like that guy, and I'd buy him

0:28:41.160 --> 0:28:42.960
<v Speaker 1>popcorn all the time. So it's not the end of

0:28:43.000 --> 0:28:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the world. But you know, I think I was doing

0:28:44.920 --> 0:28:48.840
<v Speaker 1>it subconsciously. Maybe, Um, Mike, mikey. Before we get to

0:28:49.200 --> 0:28:51.840
<v Speaker 1>your favorite prop here, this is from my buddy Jason

0:28:51.840 --> 0:28:54.440
<v Speaker 1>wein Garden, who is always on a numbers game with

0:28:54.480 --> 0:28:56.720
<v Speaker 1>me from under a cloud of smoke in southern California.

0:28:56.800 --> 0:28:58.840
<v Speaker 1>He reminded me of that. He told me about this yesterday.

0:28:58.840 --> 0:29:01.360
<v Speaker 1>I forgot pretty or seven. Jason con just reminded me,

0:29:01.400 --> 0:29:04.400
<v Speaker 1>but he actually texts. He actually tweeted this out. He said, yesterday,

0:29:04.400 --> 0:29:06.840
<v Speaker 1>I wanted to bet Vita Vella to score in any

0:29:06.840 --> 0:29:09.560
<v Speaker 1>time touchdown and nobody had it listed. So I asked

0:29:09.560 --> 0:29:12.200
<v Speaker 1>Circus Sports to make a line within fifteen to twenty minutes.

0:29:12.240 --> 0:29:14.600
<v Speaker 1>It was posted for betting. A couple other books responded

0:29:14.640 --> 0:29:17.120
<v Speaker 1>and said they couldn't do it, most ignored the request.

0:29:17.520 --> 0:29:19.720
<v Speaker 1>This is to say that Circus Sports is the gold

0:29:19.760 --> 0:29:22.360
<v Speaker 1>standard of legal US sports books, and other books could

0:29:22.440 --> 0:29:25.080
<v Speaker 1>learn a thing or three from them. That's very nice.

0:29:25.200 --> 0:29:27.880
<v Speaker 1>How about that we do that. We do that, We

0:29:28.200 --> 0:29:31.000
<v Speaker 1>take suggestions and then they make it. They move the market. Obviously,

0:29:31.080 --> 0:29:34.280
<v Speaker 1>if he post him right, that that affects everybody else

0:29:34.320 --> 0:29:36.280
<v Speaker 1>that you have listed to score the first touchdown. So

0:29:37.320 --> 0:29:40.800
<v Speaker 1>it's a compliments to Metcalf and Chris Bennett just coming

0:29:40.880 --> 0:29:42.880
<v Speaker 1>up with these squares and coming up with four hundred

0:29:42.920 --> 0:29:46.800
<v Speaker 1>different markets on these different numbers. Is we've written more

0:29:46.840 --> 0:29:49.480
<v Speaker 1>now already this year than we did last year on

0:29:49.560 --> 0:29:52.240
<v Speaker 1>the squares. Right on the squares the research Mike like,

0:29:52.320 --> 0:29:55.480
<v Speaker 1>which numbers come out the most uh common? I assume

0:29:55.640 --> 0:29:57.640
<v Speaker 1>researched it, and then and then you have to factor

0:29:57.640 --> 0:29:59.720
<v Speaker 1>in who the two teams are, right and with the

0:29:59.760 --> 0:30:02.040
<v Speaker 1>toe it is as a factor in that. And but

0:30:02.160 --> 0:30:04.880
<v Speaker 1>people bet the odd numbers because they want a big payout.

0:30:05.440 --> 0:30:08.280
<v Speaker 1>Last year was all common numbers seven zero, seven three.

0:30:08.280 --> 0:30:10.440
<v Speaker 1>And we when we when we held like seventy of

0:30:10.480 --> 0:30:13.200
<v Speaker 1>the pool because people are betting the five, five and

0:30:13.200 --> 0:30:15.320
<v Speaker 1>the eight too, and all the four yeah, because they

0:30:15.320 --> 0:30:17.760
<v Speaker 1>want five thousand to one thousand and one all that stuff.

0:30:19.040 --> 0:30:22.680
<v Speaker 1>Favorite props are I like Kansas City to score over

0:30:22.760 --> 0:30:24.720
<v Speaker 1>one and a half touchdowns in the first half. I

0:30:24.800 --> 0:30:27.760
<v Speaker 1>laid one your reasoning, Well, look at there's gonna be

0:30:28.120 --> 0:30:31.560
<v Speaker 1>six probably seven possessions in the first half. Is Tampa

0:30:31.560 --> 0:30:33.800
<v Speaker 1>Bay gonna stop my homes five times from scoring? To

0:30:33.960 --> 0:30:36.520
<v Speaker 1>I just I'm with Todd about how good this offense is.

0:30:36.840 --> 0:30:39.240
<v Speaker 1>I think they just score when they want to score.

0:30:39.360 --> 0:30:40.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean, and not that not that they don't so,

0:30:40.960 --> 0:30:43.560
<v Speaker 1>but they're just so good. They don't waste any places.

0:30:43.560 --> 0:30:45.400
<v Speaker 1>They don't run into the middle of the line, you

0:30:45.440 --> 0:30:47.960
<v Speaker 1>know what I mean. They just they're always getting there

0:30:47.800 --> 0:30:50.320
<v Speaker 1>the ball to guys in space where they can make plays.

0:30:50.360 --> 0:30:53.000
<v Speaker 1>And I just think it's real tough unless this this

0:30:53.160 --> 0:30:55.520
<v Speaker 1>line move and missing the left tackle and then they

0:30:55.520 --> 0:30:57.640
<v Speaker 1>can get a lot of pressure with four guys and

0:30:57.680 --> 0:31:00.920
<v Speaker 1>really disrupt him. It's hard. Either either they drop a

0:31:00.960 --> 0:31:02.960
<v Speaker 1>ball or they get sacked on third down. Those are

0:31:03.000 --> 0:31:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the only ways they don't score on these drives. And

0:31:04.920 --> 0:31:07.200
<v Speaker 1>in the first half of games, Read is more aggressive

0:31:07.200 --> 0:31:09.400
<v Speaker 1>on the fourth and short when he has the lead

0:31:09.440 --> 0:31:11.440
<v Speaker 1>and he starts kicking field goals in the second half,

0:31:11.720 --> 0:31:14.080
<v Speaker 1>but in early in games he's trying to score touchdowns

0:31:14.160 --> 0:31:17.240
<v Speaker 1>and build the lead. So I thought that was good

0:31:17.240 --> 0:31:20.040
<v Speaker 1>point there. In the first game, the first half, they

0:31:20.120 --> 0:31:24.320
<v Speaker 1>threw the ball of their plays yea. In the first

0:31:24.320 --> 0:31:26.920
<v Speaker 1>half against Tampa Bay the first time. I mean, and

0:31:26.960 --> 0:31:28.720
<v Speaker 1>they're not gonna try to run. Tampuy has got a

0:31:28.720 --> 0:31:30.760
<v Speaker 1>good run defense, one of the best. But I'm not

0:31:30.800 --> 0:31:34.680
<v Speaker 1>gonna bother Dr Bob bringing it. Yeah, that's why he's

0:31:34.680 --> 0:31:36.320
<v Speaker 1>on the super Bowl edition. That's why he's on the

0:31:36.320 --> 0:31:40.720
<v Speaker 1>super Bowl Edition. First half of the first meeting, My

0:31:41.240 --> 0:31:43.640
<v Speaker 1>this is all I memorize this stuff for you. You

0:31:43.640 --> 0:31:46.520
<v Speaker 1>know that's right. But are you wearing contacts though? Bob

0:31:46.600 --> 0:31:48.840
<v Speaker 1>tell the truth. I just I just want to look

0:31:48.920 --> 0:31:53.120
<v Speaker 1>pretty and you do and you do. Um my wife

0:31:53.680 --> 0:32:00.800
<v Speaker 1>shaved too. I have Tom Brady over a half a

0:32:00.920 --> 0:32:06.160
<v Speaker 1>yard rushing Thomas Brady over zero point five yards rushing.

0:32:06.520 --> 0:32:10.880
<v Speaker 1>Now this correlates as well with my game bets on

0:32:10.960 --> 0:32:14.280
<v Speaker 1>the Kansas City Chiefs because I do not believe that

0:32:14.320 --> 0:32:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Tom Brady will be kneeled down late in the game,

0:32:17.720 --> 0:32:20.240
<v Speaker 1>and so therefore I can't run into if I believe

0:32:20.280 --> 0:32:23.320
<v Speaker 1>that the Tom Brady will lose yardage kneeling down. What

0:32:23.480 --> 0:32:27.160
<v Speaker 1>is your back? Tom Brady over half a yard rushing?

0:32:27.880 --> 0:32:30.240
<v Speaker 1>Now I have a bet, but it's it's will he

0:32:30.320 --> 0:32:33.560
<v Speaker 1>have any rush that's positive yardage? So it's not total

0:32:33.640 --> 0:32:36.520
<v Speaker 1>rushing yards, it's will he have a positive rush? And

0:32:36.520 --> 0:32:47.640
<v Speaker 1>I laid one that's the quarterback sneak. He is the greatest. Yes,

0:32:48.040 --> 0:32:50.080
<v Speaker 1>that was so. My explanation was just that it's the

0:32:50.080 --> 0:32:52.800
<v Speaker 1>greatest quarterback sneaker of all time. Third and one fourth

0:32:52.800 --> 0:32:55.640
<v Speaker 1>and one doorstep of the end zone. Tom Brady will

0:32:55.680 --> 0:32:58.600
<v Speaker 1>sneak at some point, and especially because Tampa Bay after

0:32:58.600 --> 0:33:01.640
<v Speaker 1>seeing Sean mcderbott not be aggressive last week if there

0:33:01.680 --> 0:33:03.680
<v Speaker 1>was any doubt. How you play the Chiefs, you've got

0:33:03.680 --> 0:33:05.640
<v Speaker 1>to be aggressive. So if there are fourth and once,

0:33:05.880 --> 0:33:07.840
<v Speaker 1>they'll be more inclined to go for it. And Brady's

0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:11.040
<v Speaker 1>there and again correlating with my Kansas City conviction on

0:33:11.080 --> 0:33:13.760
<v Speaker 1>the game line, Therefore, I won't be worried about the

0:33:13.800 --> 0:33:17.360
<v Speaker 1>Tom Brady kneel downs to take yardage away. Tom Brady

0:33:17.400 --> 0:33:22.120
<v Speaker 1>over half a yard rushing Todd, do you endorse it? Yeah?

0:33:22.120 --> 0:33:24.080
<v Speaker 1>The only The only thing I would say is I

0:33:24.600 --> 0:33:26.840
<v Speaker 1>have noticed this year, and I don't have the stats

0:33:26.880 --> 0:33:28.600
<v Speaker 1>to back it up, but I have noticed he doesn't

0:33:28.640 --> 0:33:30.480
<v Speaker 1>sneak as much as he used to do on the Patriots.

0:33:30.520 --> 0:33:33.000
<v Speaker 1>And the Patriots used to sneak like every five seconds.

0:33:33.000 --> 0:33:34.800
<v Speaker 1>It was like a sneak for a first down. I've

0:33:34.880 --> 0:33:37.800
<v Speaker 1>noticed it's not as often on Tampa Bay, but I'm

0:33:37.840 --> 0:33:40.160
<v Speaker 1>sure I could still happens. Well, he's he's he's ninety

0:33:40.200 --> 0:33:43.200
<v Speaker 1>seven years old now and he's still he still sneaks

0:33:43.240 --> 0:33:46.880
<v Speaker 1>it more than Big Ben or Rivers. No those guys

0:33:46.920 --> 0:33:49.760
<v Speaker 1>sneak anymore at all. Tom Brady still sneaking at forty

0:33:49.800 --> 0:33:53.360
<v Speaker 1>three years old. Uh, Todd, you don't have any right. Well,

0:33:53.440 --> 0:33:55.400
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I'm just I don't really like to play these,

0:33:55.440 --> 0:33:57.400
<v Speaker 1>But if I was gonna play one of them, I'd

0:33:57.400 --> 0:34:00.960
<v Speaker 1>probably play tom Brady over a half of interception minus

0:34:01.000 --> 0:34:03.719
<v Speaker 1>one ninety. I just think that there's I've seen too

0:34:03.760 --> 0:34:06.720
<v Speaker 1>many Tom Brady games this year where he throws these

0:34:06.800 --> 0:34:10.360
<v Speaker 1>dying duck quil passes out there and somebody drops it in,

0:34:10.680 --> 0:34:13.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, and last week they were all catching them, obviously,

0:34:13.400 --> 0:34:15.120
<v Speaker 1>so he threw all those or two weeks ago, he

0:34:15.160 --> 0:34:17.799
<v Speaker 1>threw all those interceptions. But he throws a lot more

0:34:17.840 --> 0:34:21.759
<v Speaker 1>interceptions than tom Brady Vintage New England used to throw.

0:34:21.960 --> 0:34:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Tom Brady tom Brady Vintage New England didn't throw you know,

0:34:25.600 --> 0:34:28.200
<v Speaker 1>a million balls that could have easily been intercepted. And

0:34:28.239 --> 0:34:30.600
<v Speaker 1>I just noticed it a lot more. Now. Kansas City

0:34:30.640 --> 0:34:34.920
<v Speaker 1>is not exactly the most um you know, uh, greatest

0:34:34.920 --> 0:34:37.400
<v Speaker 1>secondary to to do this, but I just feel like

0:34:37.640 --> 0:34:40.120
<v Speaker 1>if they get behind by too much, you know, he's

0:34:40.120 --> 0:34:43.719
<v Speaker 1>gonna he gets rushed or something, he gets jostled a

0:34:43.719 --> 0:34:45.640
<v Speaker 1>little bit. He seems to throw balls that are just

0:34:46.400 --> 0:34:48.960
<v Speaker 1>not tom Brady esque. I would say, let's say he's

0:34:49.080 --> 0:34:51.520
<v Speaker 1>before he threw five percent balls. There weren't Tom Brady

0:34:51.680 --> 0:34:56.040
<v Speaker 1>this year. It's like se of Todd. Don't you think

0:34:56.080 --> 0:34:59.640
<v Speaker 1>that you know, and he's still playing at a high level,

0:34:59.640 --> 0:35:01.920
<v Speaker 1>but don't you think there's some throws now he's more

0:35:01.960 --> 0:35:05.200
<v Speaker 1>Philip Rivers than Tom Brady. Short arms these balls and

0:35:05.320 --> 0:35:07.440
<v Speaker 1>just lofts them out there like he never used to do.

0:35:07.560 --> 0:35:09.319
<v Speaker 1>Did that last week a couple of times. That's why

0:35:09.320 --> 0:35:12.439
<v Speaker 1>I say his his tom his non tom Brady esque

0:35:12.440 --> 0:35:16.399
<v Speaker 1>throws are up to like, it's a lot more. It's

0:35:16.440 --> 0:35:19.480
<v Speaker 1>a lot more non Tom Brady yes throws and you

0:35:19.560 --> 0:35:21.719
<v Speaker 1>just didn't look. I'm not saying the guy's not great.

0:35:21.719 --> 0:35:23.839
<v Speaker 1>He's the greatest of all time. In my opinion. He's

0:35:23.840 --> 0:35:26.480
<v Speaker 1>a fantasy. He's even a good quarterback. Now. I just

0:35:26.560 --> 0:35:30.440
<v Speaker 1>think that he's not the old Tom. I remember the

0:35:30.480 --> 0:35:33.320
<v Speaker 1>old Tom Brady. The old Tom Brady was throwing darts

0:35:33.600 --> 0:35:35.640
<v Speaker 1>and it would take a guy's head off. It would

0:35:35.680 --> 0:35:37.880
<v Speaker 1>hit him right in the middle of the numbers every

0:35:37.920 --> 0:35:40.719
<v Speaker 1>single time. It's not the same Tom Brady this year.

0:35:40.800 --> 0:35:42.759
<v Speaker 1>But I'm not saying he's not good. By the way,

0:35:42.800 --> 0:35:44.680
<v Speaker 1>it's that I don't have a bet on the total.

0:35:44.960 --> 0:35:46.960
<v Speaker 1>But it's why I would not bet an under on

0:35:47.080 --> 0:35:49.600
<v Speaker 1>this game. I would only bet the over because I think,

0:35:49.640 --> 0:35:51.600
<v Speaker 1>just on what you're talking about, Todd, I think we

0:35:51.640 --> 0:35:53.880
<v Speaker 1>will see a short field or two in this game,

0:35:54.360 --> 0:35:56.279
<v Speaker 1>and short fields are the death of unders, and so

0:35:56.320 --> 0:35:59.600
<v Speaker 1>I would I wouldn't. I can very easily see that happening.

0:35:59.640 --> 0:36:04.440
<v Speaker 1>While interceptions were fortuitous in terms of field field position

0:36:04.600 --> 0:36:09.920
<v Speaker 1>last week, um, you know deep in Green Bay territory,

0:36:10.160 --> 0:36:12.880
<v Speaker 1>you can't always count on that. So yeah, for me,

0:36:12.880 --> 0:36:14.360
<v Speaker 1>it would be on the total. Not that I bet it,

0:36:14.360 --> 0:36:15.880
<v Speaker 1>by the way, full disclosure, but it would be Do

0:36:15.880 --> 0:36:18.239
<v Speaker 1>you agree that? Do you and Dr Bob agree that

0:36:18.520 --> 0:36:21.440
<v Speaker 1>his throws this year do like if you put them

0:36:21.520 --> 0:36:24.560
<v Speaker 1>up against his old Tom Brady, not last year tom Brady.

0:36:24.600 --> 0:36:26.520
<v Speaker 1>I'm talking about like two, three, four or five years

0:36:26.520 --> 0:36:29.360
<v Speaker 1>ago tom Brady, it doesn't look the same. Well, the

0:36:29.440 --> 0:36:31.640
<v Speaker 1>I do. I agree with that anecdotally. The pick that

0:36:31.719 --> 0:36:34.560
<v Speaker 1>we saw, particularly the one that was intended for I

0:36:34.560 --> 0:36:38.240
<v Speaker 1>guess intended in quotes for Evans last week at Green

0:36:38.280 --> 0:36:41.759
<v Speaker 1>Bay was you know it was like no, no, no, no, no,

0:36:41.800 --> 0:36:43.680
<v Speaker 1>not the tipped one, not the one over the middle

0:36:43.680 --> 0:36:46.560
<v Speaker 1>where it went off Evans hands. But I'm talking about

0:36:46.560 --> 0:36:49.080
<v Speaker 1>just like sort of the he just sort of figured

0:36:49.160 --> 0:36:52.400
<v Speaker 1>Evans would would go under it and you know, on

0:36:52.440 --> 0:36:55.640
<v Speaker 1>the outside. And I remember thinking remarking to myself or

0:36:55.640 --> 0:36:57.920
<v Speaker 1>at least thinking about him, like, I don't see tom

0:36:57.960 --> 0:37:00.840
<v Speaker 1>Brady doing that, Like he's not usually the one that

0:37:01.080 --> 0:37:03.760
<v Speaker 1>that chucks that up and then hopes the receiver figures

0:37:03.800 --> 0:37:06.600
<v Speaker 1>it out. You know that, Dr Bob? Do you agree

0:37:06.640 --> 0:37:10.000
<v Speaker 1>with that? Also, I haven't watched enough Tampa Bay games.

0:37:10.000 --> 0:37:12.000
<v Speaker 1>I watched the Red Zone channel while I'm working on

0:37:12.040 --> 0:37:14.680
<v Speaker 1>college football, the you know, the next week's college football

0:37:14.719 --> 0:37:17.160
<v Speaker 1>song show to glancing, So I'm not really watching enough

0:37:17.200 --> 0:37:21.399
<v Speaker 1>Tampa based specific games to They're not showing a lot

0:37:21.400 --> 0:37:27.320
<v Speaker 1>of Tom Brady's ducks on the Red Zone channel, probably

0:37:27.320 --> 0:37:30.840
<v Speaker 1>showing more touchdowns than than bad plays. Do your stats?

0:37:30.920 --> 0:37:34.200
<v Speaker 1>Do your stats say that he's a different quarterback now? Well,

0:37:34.480 --> 0:37:37.359
<v Speaker 1>what's different is he's among the lead leaders, have not

0:37:37.440 --> 0:37:40.759
<v Speaker 1>the league leader in average air yards per throw, So

0:37:40.800 --> 0:37:43.120
<v Speaker 1>he's thrown it down the field a lot more than

0:37:43.160 --> 0:37:45.640
<v Speaker 1>he did with New England, especially in recent years. Who's

0:37:45.640 --> 0:37:49.640
<v Speaker 1>gonna have more interceptions? But given that he's leading the

0:37:49.680 --> 0:37:51.320
<v Speaker 1>league or near the top of the league in average

0:37:51.320 --> 0:37:55.040
<v Speaker 1>air yards per throw, his interception rate is relatively low.

0:37:55.440 --> 0:37:58.360
<v Speaker 1>But because he's taking more chances down the field, he's

0:37:58.400 --> 0:38:00.279
<v Speaker 1>gonna Yeah, he's not the same Tom Brady where he's

0:38:00.320 --> 0:38:03.680
<v Speaker 1>gonna have five interceptions year. I mean, he's gonna throw

0:38:03.719 --> 0:38:06.319
<v Speaker 1>more interceptions as they'll throwing the ball down filmore so.

0:38:06.440 --> 0:38:08.640
<v Speaker 1>But do you take into account that now he's got

0:38:08.719 --> 0:38:11.800
<v Speaker 1>like an all star team of receivers versus New England

0:38:11.960 --> 0:38:15.200
<v Speaker 1>where he was doing all that amazing magical stuff with

0:38:15.239 --> 0:38:19.279
<v Speaker 1>guys like Julian Edelman and like just garbage receivers except

0:38:19.320 --> 0:38:21.040
<v Speaker 1>for when he had Randy Moss. He had did not

0:38:21.120 --> 0:38:24.080
<v Speaker 1>have good receivers, and and now he's playing with this Tampa.

0:38:24.239 --> 0:38:27.200
<v Speaker 1>That's why I feel like it's been disguised at because

0:38:27.200 --> 0:38:28.839
<v Speaker 1>of that, he's taking more rest because he's got better

0:38:28.920 --> 0:38:33.799
<v Speaker 1>receivers also among among the league leaders, and getting rid

0:38:33.800 --> 0:38:38.759
<v Speaker 1>of the ball quickest still Tom Brady this year in Tampa. Um, Bob,

0:38:38.800 --> 0:38:39.960
<v Speaker 1>you have a you have a few more. What's the

0:38:40.040 --> 0:38:43.080
<v Speaker 1>number two? Well, you know, speaking of getting rid of

0:38:43.080 --> 0:38:46.400
<v Speaker 1>the ball quickly, Um, the Buccaneers defense to record the

0:38:46.440 --> 0:38:50.759
<v Speaker 1>first stack of the game is Mayas on ish Um.

0:38:50.800 --> 0:38:52.879
<v Speaker 1>I think up to Mayas one fifty is a good

0:38:52.920 --> 0:38:54.360
<v Speaker 1>bet that the Bucks will get the first stack. I

0:38:54.360 --> 0:38:56.960
<v Speaker 1>already mentioned that Kansas City in the first meeting through

0:38:57.000 --> 0:38:58.880
<v Speaker 1>the ball eight three percent of the time in the

0:38:58.920 --> 0:39:04.279
<v Speaker 1>first half. Why why change that up? I expect something similar. Uh.

0:39:04.360 --> 0:39:07.320
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay tends to run the ball on first intense

0:39:07.760 --> 0:39:10.080
<v Speaker 1>their seventh in the league and first and ten run rate,

0:39:10.560 --> 0:39:13.560
<v Speaker 1>so they tend to be more conservative, especially early in

0:39:13.560 --> 0:39:17.600
<v Speaker 1>the game. Um, and I've already mentioned Kansas City's offensive

0:39:17.600 --> 0:39:20.600
<v Speaker 1>line problems, So I just think there's gonna be more

0:39:20.760 --> 0:39:25.239
<v Speaker 1>pressure on my homes than normal. Uh. Tampa Bay's saturated

0:39:25.320 --> 0:39:28.319
<v Speaker 1>six point nine percent, which is high. Mahomes was only

0:39:28.360 --> 0:39:30.200
<v Speaker 1>sacked three point four percent of the time, but like

0:39:30.200 --> 0:39:33.719
<v Speaker 1>I said, most of them was with a healthy offensive line. Um,

0:39:33.920 --> 0:39:35.560
<v Speaker 1>Brady gets rid of the ball quick, like you said.

0:39:35.600 --> 0:39:38.400
<v Speaker 1>That was one of my points. So I think Tampa

0:39:39.239 --> 0:39:41.640
<v Speaker 1>Hanpason is gonna throw the ball more often early in

0:39:41.640 --> 0:39:44.440
<v Speaker 1>the game, I think than Tampa Bay will. And because

0:39:44.480 --> 0:39:46.759
<v Speaker 1>that's part of the reason, I think the Buccaneers will

0:39:46.840 --> 0:39:51.000
<v Speaker 1>record the first defensive sack. So that's a prop there.

0:39:51.400 --> 0:39:55.279
<v Speaker 1>I like that, Mikey. Uh, those were the only two.

0:39:55.280 --> 0:39:59.640
<v Speaker 1>I bet. What was your second was the Brady will

0:39:59.680 --> 0:40:03.080
<v Speaker 1>have a rushing attempt a positive yard and over one

0:40:03.120 --> 0:40:05.279
<v Speaker 1>and a half Chiefs touchdowns in the first half. That's

0:40:05.320 --> 0:40:10.840
<v Speaker 1>that's it. Okay, um my number two is Travis Kelsey

0:40:10.960 --> 0:40:17.120
<v Speaker 1>anytime touchdown minus one se Travis Kelsey anytime touchdown minus

0:40:17.160 --> 0:40:19.400
<v Speaker 1>one seventy five A lot to lay. Bob made a

0:40:19.400 --> 0:40:22.959
<v Speaker 1>point about Tampa Bay's uh defense covering tight ends pretty well.

0:40:23.160 --> 0:40:24.640
<v Speaker 1>This is one of these bets where I'm just sort

0:40:24.680 --> 0:40:27.359
<v Speaker 1>of like a bet, I'm willing to lose. You can

0:40:27.400 --> 0:40:30.320
<v Speaker 1>beat me on this tip of the captains, Tampa Bay Buccaneers,

0:40:30.360 --> 0:40:32.319
<v Speaker 1>they're still gooda when they get close, they're still gonna

0:40:32.320 --> 0:40:35.120
<v Speaker 1>look for Kelsey. Then yeah, maybe in general Tampa Bay

0:40:35.120 --> 0:40:37.319
<v Speaker 1>does not allow a lot of receiving arts to tight ends.

0:40:37.560 --> 0:40:40.040
<v Speaker 1>But they're suddenly looking for him and down near the

0:40:40.040 --> 0:40:42.920
<v Speaker 1>goal line, and he saw the kind of the trick

0:40:43.080 --> 0:40:44.760
<v Speaker 1>play they kind of had to get him open against

0:40:44.760 --> 0:40:47.680
<v Speaker 1>the Bills, I mean where they kind of snuck them

0:40:47.680 --> 0:40:50.080
<v Speaker 1>out And how did they not cover Kelsey? Is that

0:40:50.160 --> 0:40:54.560
<v Speaker 1>last week weeks ago which one Kelsey step out was

0:40:54.719 --> 0:40:57.239
<v Speaker 1>wide open in the end zone for one of those touchdowns. Oh,

0:40:57.280 --> 0:40:58.719
<v Speaker 1>they all run in together for me. Now, I'm not

0:40:58.760 --> 0:41:01.400
<v Speaker 1>sure which one you're referring to. It was I was

0:41:01.440 --> 0:41:03.480
<v Speaker 1>against the bills of the week before that. Oh yeah,

0:41:03.480 --> 0:41:05.480
<v Speaker 1>where he was just sitting out there in this direction

0:41:05.520 --> 0:41:10.200
<v Speaker 1>where Kelsey came out to the left, no one was around,

0:41:10.680 --> 0:41:14.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, five days to get him over here the episode.

0:41:14.400 --> 0:41:16.359
<v Speaker 1>So I'm not against that. I don't know if I've

0:41:16.400 --> 0:41:19.120
<v Speaker 1>laid one step five odds, but I'm not against it.

0:41:19.160 --> 0:41:21.200
<v Speaker 1>I had no problem laying what my minus one seven

0:41:21.320 --> 0:41:24.040
<v Speaker 1>five for eighty two last time these two teams played.

0:41:24.040 --> 0:41:28.319
<v Speaker 1>By the way, um, there's some interesting plus justice if

0:41:28.360 --> 0:41:30.600
<v Speaker 1>you could, you think he's gonna get two touchdowns over

0:41:30.640 --> 0:41:33.120
<v Speaker 1>one and a half some really nice plus yeah, plus

0:41:33.200 --> 0:41:35.439
<v Speaker 1>money you can get. Some books are offering two guys

0:41:35.440 --> 0:41:37.719
<v Speaker 1>scoring a touchdown at plus money. You know you can

0:41:37.800 --> 0:41:40.480
<v Speaker 1>do the math on and see if it's good. DraftKings

0:41:40.520 --> 0:41:42.160
<v Speaker 1>is doing that, by the way, they didn't offer Travis

0:41:42.200 --> 0:41:44.240
<v Speaker 1>Kelsey and Tom Brady. I'm gonna have to ask Johnny

0:41:44.239 --> 0:41:47.880
<v Speaker 1>Evell to put that one up. But interesting stat about

0:41:47.880 --> 0:41:49.759
<v Speaker 1>the red zone though for for Kansas City, I'm not

0:41:49.800 --> 0:41:53.239
<v Speaker 1>sure if your stats corroborate this as well, Bob, that

0:41:53.360 --> 0:41:58.279
<v Speaker 1>Tyreek Hill has gotten one more red zone target than

0:41:58.480 --> 0:42:01.600
<v Speaker 1>Travis Kelsey this year. I would never have imagined that.

0:42:01.719 --> 0:42:03.840
<v Speaker 1>I would have thought it would be a math monster

0:42:03.920 --> 0:42:08.719
<v Speaker 1>gap between the two. Well, they run those little There's

0:42:08.719 --> 0:42:10.359
<v Speaker 1>been a couple of life scene where they kind of

0:42:10.480 --> 0:42:13.280
<v Speaker 1>run him in motion and then he just keeps going

0:42:13.320 --> 0:42:15.160
<v Speaker 1>and sort of just runs to the corner and then

0:42:15.239 --> 0:42:18.920
<v Speaker 1>get him the ball before the like one yard or

0:42:19.000 --> 0:42:20.799
<v Speaker 1>at the line of scrimmage, and then he just sort

0:42:20.840 --> 0:42:24.520
<v Speaker 1>of sprints it into the corner. Pymon. I've seen a

0:42:24.520 --> 0:42:26.600
<v Speaker 1>few of those. Those are the only those are the

0:42:26.640 --> 0:42:28.680
<v Speaker 1>only two props. I've been Brady over half yard and

0:42:28.920 --> 0:42:30.439
<v Speaker 1>Kelsey might just wants every home. You have a couple

0:42:30.480 --> 0:42:36.080
<v Speaker 1>more bumps. I'm gonna do one more. UM Brian Pringle,

0:42:36.560 --> 0:42:39.720
<v Speaker 1>who maybe no one's heard about, but there are props

0:42:39.719 --> 0:42:41.440
<v Speaker 1>on his receiving yards and it's at ten and a

0:42:41.520 --> 0:42:45.360
<v Speaker 1>half mostly UM. He's been getting some playing time because

0:42:45.440 --> 0:42:49.000
<v Speaker 1>Watkins has been out. Looks like Watkins is gonna play UM.

0:42:49.000 --> 0:42:52.800
<v Speaker 1>So they have Tyree Hill to Marcus Robinson, Um Hardeman,

0:42:52.880 --> 0:42:56.040
<v Speaker 1>and then Watkins. So Pringle would be the fifth wide receiver.

0:42:56.960 --> 0:43:00.319
<v Speaker 1>He might not even got on the field, So I

0:43:00.320 --> 0:43:03.040
<v Speaker 1>think under ten and a half receiving yards even if

0:43:03.040 --> 0:43:05.480
<v Speaker 1>he does catch a ball, it's probably gonna be around

0:43:05.520 --> 0:43:08.200
<v Speaker 1>ten yards. I think it's a good bet. I don't

0:43:08.200 --> 0:43:10.879
<v Speaker 1>think he's gonna get a get a target. So if

0:43:10.880 --> 0:43:14.319
<v Speaker 1>Watkins plays, I don't think Kingles playing, so under ten

0:43:14.360 --> 0:43:16.400
<v Speaker 1>and a half receiving yards on Brian Kringle. If you

0:43:16.400 --> 0:43:18.200
<v Speaker 1>can find it, there's that's some of the major books.

0:43:18.200 --> 0:43:21.640
<v Speaker 1>Not every online book is going to have that, but

0:43:21.680 --> 0:43:24.040
<v Speaker 1>there's one. There's one to play. If you have one

0:43:24.080 --> 0:43:28.560
<v Speaker 1>deal that you might like, what do you got tough?

0:43:29.960 --> 0:43:32.760
<v Speaker 1>I kind of like this one length of longest drive

0:43:33.560 --> 0:43:37.359
<v Speaker 1>under eighty four and a half minus one thirty. So

0:43:37.600 --> 0:43:41.320
<v Speaker 1>basically what that means is as long as nobody starts

0:43:41.400 --> 0:43:45.279
<v Speaker 1>from inside the fifteen yard line and goes for a touchdown,

0:43:45.760 --> 0:43:48.000
<v Speaker 1>you win the bet. So here's why I'm thinking that

0:43:48.000 --> 0:43:51.120
<v Speaker 1>that might be a good bet. Why would that even

0:43:51.200 --> 0:43:53.840
<v Speaker 1>happen in the first place? Right it would happen is

0:43:53.880 --> 0:43:56.600
<v Speaker 1>if one team is it around seven yard line and

0:43:56.640 --> 0:43:59.719
<v Speaker 1>decides to punt and somehow pins the other team deep,

0:43:59.719 --> 0:44:02.719
<v Speaker 1>and now the other team goes, you know, more than

0:44:02.840 --> 0:44:06.080
<v Speaker 1>eighty four and a half yard drive starting from the fifteen.

0:44:06.440 --> 0:44:10.239
<v Speaker 1>I have a feeling that Tampa Bay is gonna think

0:44:10.320 --> 0:44:12.600
<v Speaker 1>if they're on the plus side of the field. They've

0:44:12.600 --> 0:44:15.360
<v Speaker 1>got to go for it because you've gotta beat Kansas

0:44:15.400 --> 0:44:17.879
<v Speaker 1>City when you have the opportunity. So I don't see

0:44:17.880 --> 0:44:21.120
<v Speaker 1>them thinking, Okay, yeah, let's pin Kansas City back because

0:44:21.560 --> 0:44:23.040
<v Speaker 1>Kansa City is gonna be at the Fort yard land

0:44:23.080 --> 0:44:25.640
<v Speaker 1>in ten minutes, in ten seconds anyways, so why even

0:44:25.680 --> 0:44:29.000
<v Speaker 1>try to pin them deep? Typically that's probably not gonna

0:44:29.040 --> 0:44:31.719
<v Speaker 1>happen as much against Kansas City. You're gonna go for

0:44:31.800 --> 0:44:33.799
<v Speaker 1>it more as opposed to try to pin them deep.

0:44:34.040 --> 0:44:36.400
<v Speaker 1>On the other side, Kansas City may try to do

0:44:36.440 --> 0:44:39.000
<v Speaker 1>it to Tampa Bay, but then as Tampa Bay really

0:44:39.040 --> 0:44:41.399
<v Speaker 1>gonna be able to do um eighty five yard drives,

0:44:41.400 --> 0:44:44.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm more concerned about Kansas City being able to do it.

0:44:44.239 --> 0:44:46.319
<v Speaker 1>So I kind of like that one under eighty four

0:44:46.320 --> 0:44:49.200
<v Speaker 1>and a half as the longest drive minus one thirty.

0:44:49.239 --> 0:44:51.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't know what you guys think about that. I

0:44:51.400 --> 0:44:53.000
<v Speaker 1>like the reason they the only two things that could

0:44:53.160 --> 0:44:56.480
<v Speaker 1>get you, I guess, are our deep deep field position,

0:44:56.760 --> 0:45:00.560
<v Speaker 1>pick or turnover or fumble, pick or fumble, and if

0:45:00.600 --> 0:45:03.799
<v Speaker 1>a kickoff return is mortared right or just a bad

0:45:03.880 --> 0:45:06.120
<v Speaker 1>kickoff return, that would be the only other thing obviously,

0:45:06.480 --> 0:45:11.040
<v Speaker 1>typically they get to the sixteen. Yes, typically, I forgot

0:45:11.080 --> 0:45:16.200
<v Speaker 1>I have a third one. It's it's I laid four

0:45:16.200 --> 0:45:23.600
<v Speaker 1>oh five. Okay, Brad Pinion, the punter for Tampa, Brad

0:45:23.760 --> 0:45:27.480
<v Speaker 1>racking Pinion will not punt a touch back minus four

0:45:27.480 --> 0:45:31.439
<v Speaker 1>oh five, will not punch a touchback, right. I like that.

0:45:31.560 --> 0:45:36.680
<v Speaker 1>He's He's had fifty five punts two touchbacks this year

0:45:37.200 --> 0:45:39.759
<v Speaker 1>and plus. The reason I choose the home punter is

0:45:39.760 --> 0:45:42.479
<v Speaker 1>because he would more understand the wind and the weather

0:45:42.560 --> 0:45:45.080
<v Speaker 1>conditions in that stadium since he kicks there eight times

0:45:45.120 --> 0:45:47.880
<v Speaker 1>a year. But also that goes with the times expected,

0:45:48.760 --> 0:45:51.160
<v Speaker 1>well not many. That's another factor, b I mean, how

0:45:51.160 --> 0:45:53.400
<v Speaker 1>many times can you punt against Kansas City and not

0:45:53.480 --> 0:45:58.919
<v Speaker 1>from plus territory. That's my same theory, Mike three, maybe

0:45:58.920 --> 0:46:05.239
<v Speaker 1>three times two or three? Yeah, let's say three, and

0:46:05.280 --> 0:46:07.960
<v Speaker 1>then it would be ten and a half percent that

0:46:08.080 --> 0:46:13.560
<v Speaker 1>he would have a touchback. Would good? I think yeah,

0:46:13.800 --> 0:46:15.879
<v Speaker 1>it would be good. I also think, Bob, it would

0:46:15.920 --> 0:46:17.560
<v Speaker 1>be waited to the fact that they're not going to

0:46:17.640 --> 0:46:19.680
<v Speaker 1>be punting from the plus forty you know what I mean,

0:46:19.680 --> 0:46:21.759
<v Speaker 1>They're gonna be going for They're gonna be punting when

0:46:21.800 --> 0:46:26.240
<v Speaker 1>they're backed up. I agree. I think that's a good bat.

0:46:26.400 --> 0:46:27.840
<v Speaker 1>By the way, there weren't a lot of punts in

0:46:27.880 --> 0:46:31.160
<v Speaker 1>the first game. By the way, Bob, could you just

0:46:31.200 --> 0:46:35.279
<v Speaker 1>explain the Matthew just did for people. Well, he said

0:46:35.280 --> 0:46:40.120
<v Speaker 1>two touchbacks and fifty fifty three divided by fifty five

0:46:40.640 --> 0:46:43.080
<v Speaker 1>at this point nine six, three, six, and then you

0:46:43.960 --> 0:46:45.800
<v Speaker 1>to the third. If he's gonna plant three times, you

0:46:45.840 --> 0:46:48.319
<v Speaker 1>use that to the third. And then she tracked one.

0:46:48.760 --> 0:46:50.680
<v Speaker 1>The chance he's gonna have a touchback is one minus

0:46:50.680 --> 0:46:53.000
<v Speaker 1>the chance he has no touchback. The chance here has

0:46:53.040 --> 0:46:56.440
<v Speaker 1>no touchbacks is like I said, fifty three out of

0:46:56.440 --> 0:46:59.640
<v Speaker 1>fifty five to the third, no touchback, no touchback, no

0:46:59.760 --> 0:47:03.319
<v Speaker 1>touch Actually find those together, um, and then subtracted one

0:47:03.320 --> 0:47:05.799
<v Speaker 1>of the chance. But that and that doesn't take into

0:47:05.840 --> 0:47:08.520
<v Speaker 1>account with Mikeias thing, which is it's also he's agreeing

0:47:08.560 --> 0:47:11.480
<v Speaker 1>with me. It's going to be rare for Tampa Bay

0:47:11.480 --> 0:47:16.359
<v Speaker 1>to be yes right, if that premise is true. It's

0:47:16.360 --> 0:47:18.279
<v Speaker 1>even less like that. I think it's a good better

0:47:18.640 --> 0:47:20.360
<v Speaker 1>four or five, because it should be problem with minus

0:47:22.040 --> 0:47:24.719
<v Speaker 1>five to water. Of course, all of these thoughts are

0:47:24.760 --> 0:47:27.160
<v Speaker 1>if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, right,

0:47:27.280 --> 0:47:29.360
<v Speaker 1>But even if not. If he punched three times, I

0:47:29.360 --> 0:47:32.520
<v Speaker 1>meant times in the regular season in seventeen games, that's

0:47:33.120 --> 0:47:35.959
<v Speaker 1>three three and a half, right, three three and change,

0:47:36.040 --> 0:47:39.000
<v Speaker 1>not even a half for you. Right, So if you think,

0:47:39.000 --> 0:47:40.799
<v Speaker 1>all right, well, maybe they put a little bit less

0:47:40.800 --> 0:47:42.920
<v Speaker 1>than three is three is legit? Even if it is,

0:47:43.120 --> 0:47:48.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, three point three point three, it's still eleven

0:47:48.480 --> 0:47:57.080
<v Speaker 1>and a half percent that he has a touch back. Yeah,

0:47:57.160 --> 0:48:00.560
<v Speaker 1>it's like seven to one on I think that's very few.

0:48:00.800 --> 0:48:05.880
<v Speaker 1>Very few punts are touch backs, especially hardman fields it

0:48:05.920 --> 0:48:11.200
<v Speaker 1>at the one anyhow, right there, the old fair that's right,

0:48:12.360 --> 0:48:14.440
<v Speaker 1>thank you. Yeah, they old like let it go if

0:48:14.480 --> 0:48:19.120
<v Speaker 1>it's inside the ten, doesn't I don't know when they

0:48:19.160 --> 0:48:21.719
<v Speaker 1>decided they don't do that anymore, but they don't. Um.

0:48:21.760 --> 0:48:23.920
<v Speaker 1>I'll say this every year again. The one prop that

0:48:24.040 --> 0:48:28.480
<v Speaker 1>flummixes tends to flummix the casual better the most in

0:48:28.560 --> 0:48:32.080
<v Speaker 1>Super Bowl prop history, will the team score three times

0:48:32.080 --> 0:48:36.000
<v Speaker 1>in a row? The no has a huge plus money

0:48:36.000 --> 0:48:39.000
<v Speaker 1>plus one seventy ish. The average better looks at that?

0:48:39.400 --> 0:48:40.720
<v Speaker 1>What do you mean? These are the two best teams

0:48:40.719 --> 0:48:43.640
<v Speaker 1>in football, By the way, conversions accepted here. These are

0:48:43.640 --> 0:48:45.640
<v Speaker 1>the two best teams in football. What are the chances

0:48:45.680 --> 0:48:47.760
<v Speaker 1>of one of these teams scoring three times in a row?

0:48:48.160 --> 0:48:50.560
<v Speaker 1>It happens all the time, by the way, last eleven

0:48:50.560 --> 0:48:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Super Bowls, for instance, if you want to do a

0:48:51.840 --> 0:48:55.439
<v Speaker 1>small sample's eye, it's happened seven times that a team

0:48:55.440 --> 0:48:57.399
<v Speaker 1>has scored three times in a row. So don't be

0:48:57.560 --> 0:49:00.279
<v Speaker 1>don't be so tempted by the no there that is

0:49:00.280 --> 0:49:03.960
<v Speaker 1>actually properly priced and books know this. Books aren't as

0:49:04.040 --> 0:49:07.719
<v Speaker 1>dumb as you might think they are in these particular situations. Bob,

0:49:07.760 --> 0:49:09.480
<v Speaker 1>has there ever been? Is there? Is? There? Are there

0:49:09.480 --> 0:49:10.960
<v Speaker 1>others that you look at where you're like, oh, I

0:49:10.960 --> 0:49:17.000
<v Speaker 1>can see people being hoodwinked by this one. I don't know.

0:49:17.239 --> 0:49:19.080
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a good one, and that's a trick one.

0:49:19.080 --> 0:49:21.719
<v Speaker 1>And I've actually never really I see that one every

0:49:21.760 --> 0:49:24.600
<v Speaker 1>year and I'm like, uh, just I just don't go

0:49:24.719 --> 0:49:27.560
<v Speaker 1>and figure out the math, you know, I'm like, and

0:49:27.719 --> 0:49:29.480
<v Speaker 1>I have to go. I have to you have to

0:49:29.520 --> 0:49:31.399
<v Speaker 1>write some kind of querry you go through the play

0:49:31.440 --> 0:49:33.920
<v Speaker 1>by play dead of all these games and competitive games

0:49:34.040 --> 0:49:36.120
<v Speaker 1>versus non competitive It would just be a headache. It's

0:49:36.160 --> 0:49:38.920
<v Speaker 1>just not worth my time to involve one other prop

0:49:39.040 --> 0:49:41.120
<v Speaker 1>and this sort of fly than the You know, if

0:49:41.120 --> 0:49:42.719
<v Speaker 1>I'm if you're in the Tampa Bay if you think

0:49:42.760 --> 0:49:47.880
<v Speaker 1>Tampa Bay is has value, then Tom Brady to win

0:49:47.920 --> 0:49:51.520
<v Speaker 1>the Super Bowl is plus two tennis um m v

0:49:52.280 --> 0:49:54.799
<v Speaker 1>it wins the Super Bowl. I think Tom Brady is

0:49:55.040 --> 0:49:57.239
<v Speaker 1>very likely to be the m v P. So if

0:49:57.239 --> 0:49:59.200
<v Speaker 1>you're on the top, if you're on the Tampa Bay train,

0:49:59.360 --> 0:50:01.440
<v Speaker 1>you think Tampa he has got a decent chance at

0:50:01.440 --> 0:50:06.400
<v Speaker 1>an upset. Here ish of an upset, then Tom Brady

0:50:06.480 --> 0:50:08.960
<v Speaker 1>in the Super Bowl plus two ten is that would

0:50:08.960 --> 0:50:11.560
<v Speaker 1>have value? Can you find plus two ten on Brady down?

0:50:11.760 --> 0:50:17.239
<v Speaker 1>That seems like wow? Plus two ten plus. I talked

0:50:17.239 --> 0:50:19.680
<v Speaker 1>about now, talked about this before the playoffs started that

0:50:19.680 --> 0:50:21.360
<v Speaker 1>if you had conviction on the Packers or if you

0:50:21.360 --> 0:50:23.400
<v Speaker 1>had conviction on the Chiefs, that was the time to

0:50:23.520 --> 0:50:26.440
<v Speaker 1>bet Rogers or Mahomes on m v P because you

0:50:26.480 --> 0:50:28.480
<v Speaker 1>were getting like five to one and six to one respectively.

0:50:28.920 --> 0:50:31.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, we we brought up a point on on

0:50:32.000 --> 0:50:33.920
<v Speaker 1>a numbers game on Visa the other day with Drew Dinsic.

0:50:34.000 --> 0:50:35.799
<v Speaker 1>Which is one of the things about voting for the

0:50:35.880 --> 0:50:38.560
<v Speaker 1>m v P is the haste with which they vote

0:50:38.600 --> 0:50:42.080
<v Speaker 1>for this. So usually by the by by the time

0:50:42.080 --> 0:50:44.200
<v Speaker 1>the clock goes to zero, they already telling you who

0:50:44.200 --> 0:50:46.319
<v Speaker 1>the m v P is. And the reason that came

0:50:46.400 --> 0:50:49.560
<v Speaker 1>up is because the a f C Championship, Travis Kelsey

0:50:49.719 --> 0:50:53.040
<v Speaker 1>had thirteen catches and two touchdowns. Tyreek Hill had a

0:50:53.080 --> 0:50:55.759
<v Speaker 1>hundred and seventy yards receiving, And so I sort of

0:50:55.840 --> 0:50:58.719
<v Speaker 1>hypothetically asked if those stats were transferred to the Super Bowl.

0:50:58.760 --> 0:51:00.920
<v Speaker 1>Let's say the Chiefs win the Super Bowl and Tyreek

0:51:00.920 --> 0:51:03.880
<v Speaker 1>has a hundred seventy yards receiving and Travis Kelsey thirteen

0:51:03.880 --> 0:51:06.160
<v Speaker 1>catches plus two touchdowns. Would one of those two guys

0:51:06.160 --> 0:51:07.600
<v Speaker 1>get the MVP or would they still give it to

0:51:07.640 --> 0:51:09.359
<v Speaker 1>the homes And one of the things we talked about

0:51:09.400 --> 0:51:11.800
<v Speaker 1>was the sheer haste with which they give the award.

0:51:12.000 --> 0:51:14.480
<v Speaker 1>They don't have like an hour to contemplate this stuff,

0:51:14.800 --> 0:51:16.640
<v Speaker 1>like and you know the NBA m v P, where

0:51:16.680 --> 0:51:18.800
<v Speaker 1>they have weeks to consider it or months for the

0:51:18.840 --> 0:51:20.640
<v Speaker 1>whole arc of the season, and they finally do it

0:51:20.760 --> 0:51:23.000
<v Speaker 1>very deliberately, they're like, Bam, there's your m v P.

0:51:23.640 --> 0:51:26.840
<v Speaker 1>And so that really does further tip it to the

0:51:26.920 --> 0:51:30.279
<v Speaker 1>scales of the quarterback because you they really just like

0:51:30.760 --> 0:51:33.400
<v Speaker 1>just get to the homes kind of thing, although in

0:51:33.480 --> 0:51:38.520
<v Speaker 1>the first game still would have definitely been that. Yes,

0:51:38.760 --> 0:51:41.760
<v Speaker 1>if it's an outlier like that where he's two hundred

0:51:41.840 --> 0:51:45.719
<v Speaker 1>yards in by halftime, but it would take something like that.

0:51:46.440 --> 0:51:48.319
<v Speaker 1>And in the in the case of Brady, which I'll

0:51:48.360 --> 0:51:51.080
<v Speaker 1>agree with you even more, they are going to bend

0:51:51.120 --> 0:51:54.920
<v Speaker 1>over backwards. Right with that narrative, let's give this guy,

0:51:54.960 --> 0:51:57.960
<v Speaker 1>like what would have to happen for Tom for Tampa

0:51:57.960 --> 0:52:00.239
<v Speaker 1>to win and Tom Brady not to get at m

0:52:00.320 --> 0:52:02.600
<v Speaker 1>v P. You can make the argument that if there

0:52:02.640 --> 0:52:05.080
<v Speaker 1>was an m VP of the Championship game two weeks

0:52:05.080 --> 0:52:07.600
<v Speaker 1>ago against Green Bay, he threw three interceptions, he still

0:52:07.680 --> 0:52:10.799
<v Speaker 1>probably would have gotten the m v P. Yeah, in

0:52:10.920 --> 0:52:15.560
<v Speaker 1>recent days, recent days anecdotally, now, Mark de Rosa, who

0:52:15.640 --> 0:52:19.920
<v Speaker 1>had big Tampa Bay futures UH one two, like a

0:52:20.000 --> 0:52:22.640
<v Speaker 1>quarter million on them winning the NFC Championship, stands to

0:52:22.640 --> 0:52:24.880
<v Speaker 1>make more on the Super Bowl. He bet this before,

0:52:24.920 --> 0:52:27.120
<v Speaker 1>like the day before Tom Brady went to the Bucks.

0:52:27.200 --> 0:52:30.279
<v Speaker 1>Jason Weingarten, who had Tampa Bay Kansas City exact as,

0:52:30.320 --> 0:52:32.080
<v Speaker 1>also had Tampa Bay to win the NFC. Both of

0:52:32.120 --> 0:52:34.520
<v Speaker 1>these guys have been in the case of Gross a

0:52:34.640 --> 0:52:39.719
<v Speaker 1>hundred fifty two one on both uh Jason Pierre Paul

0:52:40.320 --> 0:52:44.440
<v Speaker 1>and Shack Barrett to win m v P. The thinking being,

0:52:45.040 --> 0:52:46.399
<v Speaker 1>and you're just trying to come up with a game

0:52:46.400 --> 0:52:49.359
<v Speaker 1>script draw line. If Tampa Bay went like, let's take

0:52:49.440 --> 0:52:51.880
<v Speaker 1>last year's Super Bowl. If San Francisco makes a stop

0:52:51.920 --> 0:52:54.480
<v Speaker 1>at the end of that game, Let's say it's an

0:52:54.480 --> 0:52:56.520
<v Speaker 1>interception or from or whatever, it is, a big hit,

0:52:56.880 --> 0:52:59.560
<v Speaker 1>maybe one of San Francisco's defenders gets m v P.

0:52:59.800 --> 0:53:02.680
<v Speaker 1>May ab so, I guess there's a scenario where that's

0:53:02.719 --> 0:53:04.640
<v Speaker 1>what they're Anyway, at the number they thought it was,

0:53:05.080 --> 0:53:07.759
<v Speaker 1>JPP could have like three sacks and two fumbles or

0:53:07.800 --> 0:53:12.240
<v Speaker 1>something that would do it. Barrett barretts in a better spot. Barrett.

0:53:12.520 --> 0:53:15.359
<v Speaker 1>Barrett has a higher saparate than JPP, and he's also

0:53:15.440 --> 0:53:19.840
<v Speaker 1>going to be going against the backup tackle, right, but

0:53:19.960 --> 0:53:22.480
<v Speaker 1>Barrett has a better chance of getting sacks. And man

0:53:22.520 --> 0:53:24.640
<v Speaker 1>Barrett was all over the field against the Packers, that's

0:53:24.680 --> 0:53:27.000
<v Speaker 1>for sure. So anyway, just by the way, I have

0:53:27.080 --> 0:53:29.120
<v Speaker 1>one that I wanted to ask you guys about total

0:53:29.200 --> 0:53:33.040
<v Speaker 1>players to attempt to pass, including overtime. I have under

0:53:33.080 --> 0:53:35.239
<v Speaker 1>two and a half at minus two fifteen over two

0:53:35.280 --> 0:53:39.000
<v Speaker 1>and half a plus one six. I don't remember these

0:53:39.040 --> 0:53:43.600
<v Speaker 1>teams letting anybody throw the ball besides um Mahmes and Brady.

0:53:43.680 --> 0:53:46.920
<v Speaker 1>Do you guys remember anybody throwing the ball for Kansas

0:53:46.960 --> 0:53:49.319
<v Speaker 1>City this year or for Tampa Bay. We actually looked

0:53:49.320 --> 0:53:54.000
<v Speaker 1>into that sam Sammy Watkins through a pass, That's what's that.

0:53:55.000 --> 0:53:57.120
<v Speaker 1>I thought that too. I was thinking I saw something

0:53:57.160 --> 0:54:01.600
<v Speaker 1>on a reverse path. But it's not common. No, it's

0:54:01.640 --> 0:54:04.560
<v Speaker 1>not like a Saint situation. They don't need to do

0:54:04.600 --> 0:54:07.880
<v Speaker 1>it in the Super Bowl with two great quarterbacks, they

0:54:07.880 --> 0:54:10.120
<v Speaker 1>don't need to take that risk. Yeh. That's why I

0:54:10.120 --> 0:54:14.080
<v Speaker 1>think that No, No. Under two and a half minus

0:54:14.160 --> 0:54:16.319
<v Speaker 1>two fifteen might be worth it. It's not like, you know,

0:54:16.400 --> 0:54:18.840
<v Speaker 1>you have like Belichick, who's gonna, you know, have Edelman

0:54:18.920 --> 0:54:21.200
<v Speaker 1>throw it for a touchdown or something like that. It's

0:54:21.239 --> 0:54:23.759
<v Speaker 1>it's not that kind of deal. Imagine if you had

0:54:23.800 --> 0:54:27.080
<v Speaker 1>that bet the worst bad beat ever, they're lining up

0:54:27.120 --> 0:54:28.920
<v Speaker 1>for the game winning field goal or something. It's a

0:54:29.000 --> 0:54:32.799
<v Speaker 1>bad snap and the holder has to toss, right, That's right,

0:54:33.200 --> 0:54:36.319
<v Speaker 1>that'll get you. The other work that we were talking

0:54:36.320 --> 0:54:40.440
<v Speaker 1>about is there was like an offensive lineman or a

0:54:40.520 --> 0:54:43.200
<v Speaker 1>defensive lineman to score a touchdown and it was like huge,

0:54:43.239 --> 0:54:45.840
<v Speaker 1>you know, bank for your I have that right here. Yeah,

0:54:45.920 --> 0:54:50.320
<v Speaker 1>and any offensive lineman to score touchdown is plus two thousand. Yes,

0:54:50.400 --> 0:54:53.719
<v Speaker 1>the no is like minus a gazillion. And any offensive

0:54:53.800 --> 0:54:56.799
<v Speaker 1>or defensive lineman to score a touchdown this way you

0:54:56.800 --> 0:55:00.279
<v Speaker 1>get both is plus eight hundred no minus two thousand. Book,

0:55:00.360 --> 0:55:03.560
<v Speaker 1>is that, Todd? This is the DraftKings. Yeah, so you'd

0:55:03.560 --> 0:55:05.160
<v Speaker 1>have to go back and see how many times they

0:55:05.200 --> 0:55:08.080
<v Speaker 1>wrote a tackle eligible thing down by the goal line.

0:55:08.280 --> 0:55:12.280
<v Speaker 1>And I don't know that often, Todd. Have you found

0:55:12.600 --> 0:55:16.799
<v Speaker 1>any penalty props? I haven't really, I haven't looked. I

0:55:16.840 --> 0:55:19.840
<v Speaker 1>did see, I did see some penalty I was scrolling

0:55:19.840 --> 0:55:22.400
<v Speaker 1>through all this nonsense while you guys were talking, and

0:55:22.440 --> 0:55:26.400
<v Speaker 1>I did see. I did see some penalty props. Do

0:55:26.440 --> 0:55:27.920
<v Speaker 1>you want me to see if I can find him again?

0:55:28.360 --> 0:55:31.080
<v Speaker 1>It was there an offensive holding total number of offensive

0:55:31.120 --> 0:55:41.080
<v Speaker 1>holding calls? M M, yeah, I got punch. Oh, there's

0:55:41.080 --> 0:55:42.839
<v Speaker 1>all these punting props. These are the ones you were

0:55:42.840 --> 0:55:47.720
<v Speaker 1>talking about, the inside the five drive props. Penalty props

0:55:47.719 --> 0:55:52.240
<v Speaker 1>here you go, Okay, penalty props. They've got either team

0:55:52.320 --> 0:55:55.839
<v Speaker 1>to commit a roughing the passer penalty, including overtime. That's

0:55:55.840 --> 0:55:57.840
<v Speaker 1>a good one. What do you think that one is? Guys,

0:55:58.239 --> 0:56:02.480
<v Speaker 1>that's gotta that. You've gotta lay some juice on that. No,

0:56:02.480 --> 0:56:07.239
<v Speaker 1>no is minus one sixty two plus one thirty. Well,

0:56:07.360 --> 0:56:10.360
<v Speaker 1>so if you want, that's a yes or nothing for me,

0:56:10.520 --> 0:56:13.680
<v Speaker 1>I would pay yes. And both of these quarterbacks are

0:56:13.760 --> 0:56:15.759
<v Speaker 1>the ones that will protect to you know what I mean,

0:56:16.280 --> 0:56:18.040
<v Speaker 1>not like Cam Newton where they let him beat him

0:56:18.080 --> 0:56:19.920
<v Speaker 1>up and they never call ruffing. You can't cough on

0:56:19.960 --> 0:56:25.200
<v Speaker 1>Tom Brady. You know, total penalties over ten and a half,

0:56:25.760 --> 0:56:27.760
<v Speaker 1>under ten and under ten and a half is minus

0:56:27.760 --> 0:56:29.799
<v Speaker 1>one thirty seven over ten and a half is plus

0:56:29.880 --> 0:56:34.360
<v Speaker 1>one ten How is that worded accepted penalties? This just

0:56:34.400 --> 0:56:38.319
<v Speaker 1>says total penalty. That's very poorly worded, because if it's

0:56:38.320 --> 0:56:44.160
<v Speaker 1>total penalties, you go over. Yeah, I think it's accepted. Yeah,

0:56:44.200 --> 0:56:46.400
<v Speaker 1>well do you you're there, you're the referee, Gay, Do

0:56:46.440 --> 0:56:51.000
<v Speaker 1>you have any angle on this officiating crew? No? Not really? Uh.

0:56:51.200 --> 0:56:54.520
<v Speaker 1>I just I was wondering if they put offensive holding,

0:56:54.560 --> 0:56:57.240
<v Speaker 1>because they just they refused to call offensive holding anymore

0:56:57.239 --> 0:56:59.440
<v Speaker 1>in the NFL. So I was wondering if they put

0:56:59.520 --> 0:57:01.000
<v Speaker 1>up like a three and a half on that would

0:57:01.000 --> 0:57:03.600
<v Speaker 1>be an interesting number. How about the difference. Here's one

0:57:03.719 --> 0:57:06.040
<v Speaker 1>we've seen in these some games where they're just like,

0:57:06.080 --> 0:57:08.359
<v Speaker 1>we're absolutely not throwing any flags. Then some games were

0:57:08.360 --> 0:57:10.200
<v Speaker 1>like we're the stars, We're throwing every flag we can.

0:57:10.239 --> 0:57:13.040
<v Speaker 1>Bus Well, I think no matter what, everybody enjoys the game,

0:57:13.080 --> 0:57:15.600
<v Speaker 1>they don't throw the flag. I mean, you know, there's

0:57:17.640 --> 0:57:20.280
<v Speaker 1>what what are what are the flags? Most stuff's reviewable anyhow,

0:57:20.320 --> 0:57:22.600
<v Speaker 1>you know what I mean. So well, in the green

0:57:22.640 --> 0:57:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Bay game, there was definitely missed um miss defensive holding

0:57:26.680 --> 0:57:29.480
<v Speaker 1>which they usually always call on the receivers until the

0:57:29.560 --> 0:57:31.560
<v Speaker 1>last play, which was the most important play, which they

0:57:31.560 --> 0:57:34.520
<v Speaker 1>didn't miss. The Murphy bunting pick was a total interference.

0:57:34.920 --> 0:57:38.520
<v Speaker 1>But I mean, in fairness, the green Bay right tackle

0:57:38.680 --> 0:57:41.200
<v Speaker 1>was or left tackle was you know, false started every

0:57:41.200 --> 0:57:43.200
<v Speaker 1>play they never called it. And then there was one

0:57:43.200 --> 0:57:45.400
<v Speaker 1>play where green Bay was a full second and a

0:57:45.440 --> 0:57:48.080
<v Speaker 1>half after the play call went to zero and nobody

0:57:48.120 --> 0:57:51.360
<v Speaker 1>said a word. They miss They missed that. They always

0:57:51.480 --> 0:57:53.640
<v Speaker 1>missed there's one guy that's looking at four things, and

0:57:53.680 --> 0:57:55.920
<v Speaker 1>they missed that a lot. They miss it when it's

0:57:55.920 --> 0:57:58.240
<v Speaker 1>a beat like a half second. But this one was

0:57:58.320 --> 0:58:02.600
<v Speaker 1>like one, by the way, here's the here's the one

0:58:02.640 --> 0:58:05.000
<v Speaker 1>that basically is what you're talking is similar to what

0:58:05.040 --> 0:58:08.360
<v Speaker 1>you're talking about first accepted penalty type. There's eight different

0:58:08.440 --> 0:58:10.800
<v Speaker 1>choice choices here, and I don't think holding should be

0:58:10.800 --> 0:58:13.560
<v Speaker 1>the favorite. They have holding it plus two thirty personal

0:58:13.600 --> 0:58:16.360
<v Speaker 1>foul plus three hundred, false start plus four hundred. That's

0:58:16.400 --> 0:58:18.320
<v Speaker 1>what I would guess it should be. False starter off

0:58:18.360 --> 0:58:19.920
<v Speaker 1>sides it should be this. It's gonna be one of

0:58:19.920 --> 0:58:22.760
<v Speaker 1>those pre snap penalties, right, That's what I would say.

0:58:22.880 --> 0:58:24.880
<v Speaker 1>False starts should be the favorite. False start is third

0:58:24.880 --> 0:58:28.280
<v Speaker 1>at plus four hundred. Offside is plus four fifty, passenger

0:58:28.360 --> 0:58:31.000
<v Speaker 1>ferens plus five seventy five, the layout game plus eighteen

0:58:31.040 --> 0:58:34.600
<v Speaker 1>hundred that will never happen, no penalties is plus ten thousand,

0:58:34.600 --> 0:58:36.520
<v Speaker 1>and any other fouls plus seven. I would go with

0:58:36.600 --> 0:58:39.360
<v Speaker 1>false start plus four hundred false starts. In the Super Bowl,

0:58:39.400 --> 0:58:42.760
<v Speaker 1>people are like nervous and stuff. I like that one.

0:58:46.880 --> 0:58:50.920
<v Speaker 1>You didn't do the handway. I got a couple of

0:58:50.960 --> 0:58:53.720
<v Speaker 1>guys on Casey's line that haven't been playing all season

0:58:53.720 --> 0:58:55.800
<v Speaker 1>and maybe don't own Mahome's aiden, so I could see

0:58:55.840 --> 0:58:59.520
<v Speaker 1>some star. Do you generally hear the ones we're talking about, Bob,

0:58:59.520 --> 0:59:01.000
<v Speaker 1>and you're like, I don't have time for this or

0:59:01.000 --> 0:59:04.640
<v Speaker 1>are you intrigued by the ever growing man those No,

0:59:04.920 --> 0:59:07.200
<v Speaker 1>you are not. I didn't think you were. I'm not

0:59:07.280 --> 0:59:11.560
<v Speaker 1>in my wheelhouse interesting just because it's a time suck

0:59:11.680 --> 0:59:16.240
<v Speaker 1>if you had to really truly research stuff like this. Yes, okay,

0:59:16.400 --> 0:59:18.840
<v Speaker 1>that's what I thought. All right, Well I'm with Bob anyways,

0:59:18.840 --> 0:59:21.320
<v Speaker 1>because a lot of this stuff is correlated anyway, you

0:59:21.360 --> 0:59:23.600
<v Speaker 1>might as well just watch it. First of all, don't

0:59:23.600 --> 0:59:26.360
<v Speaker 1>bet before the game. Watch the damn game. You get

0:59:26.400 --> 0:59:29.840
<v Speaker 1>so much more value and end game and by the way,

0:59:29.920 --> 0:59:32.960
<v Speaker 1>just one more shot for in game, because I always,

0:59:33.240 --> 0:59:36.240
<v Speaker 1>I always, um, you know, talk up end game. You

0:59:36.280 --> 0:59:40.160
<v Speaker 1>have to understand, you get all this information free. It's

0:59:40.240 --> 0:59:43.160
<v Speaker 1>free of charge. At the end of one quarter, they're

0:59:43.200 --> 0:59:45.600
<v Speaker 1>just going to make the line whatever the original line

0:59:45.680 --> 0:59:48.840
<v Speaker 1>is for the final three quarters. So guys, you didn't

0:59:48.920 --> 0:59:57.560
<v Speaker 1>have to bet before the game exact line. Yeah, okay,

0:59:58.120 --> 1:00:01.080
<v Speaker 1>big deal. The information is worth so much more. And

1:00:01.120 --> 1:00:03.680
<v Speaker 1>also the thirty cent line is nonsense too, because if

1:00:03.760 --> 1:00:06.480
<v Speaker 1>you're anywhere, you just compare a couple of different books

1:00:06.520 --> 1:00:08.600
<v Speaker 1>and you can certainly knock that thing down. Well, you're

1:00:08.680 --> 1:00:11.120
<v Speaker 1>right on that, and the counter of the counter is

1:00:11.160 --> 1:00:13.680
<v Speaker 1>I'll pay extra jews if it's like four points better right,

1:00:13.720 --> 1:00:15.320
<v Speaker 1>you know that kind of thing from what it was

1:00:15.360 --> 1:00:20.320
<v Speaker 1>proof if I'm studying in game bets say again, Bob,

1:00:20.400 --> 1:00:22.520
<v Speaker 1>I agree with you, and talk about if you're taking

1:00:22.520 --> 1:00:29.000
<v Speaker 1>the Todd let him finish. You can't do Margarita's. If

1:00:29.040 --> 1:00:34.320
<v Speaker 1>he's doing in game, you can't do Margarita That. That

1:00:35.880 --> 1:00:38.560
<v Speaker 1>reminds me of a lass So its debate watch party

1:00:38.560 --> 1:00:40.640
<v Speaker 1>that my wife and I went to. Alass So explain

1:00:40.680 --> 1:00:43.600
<v Speaker 1>to people. Alassa is a plaintiff attorney that used to

1:00:43.600 --> 1:00:46.880
<v Speaker 1>sponsor a segment at the debate party. Follow the money,

1:00:46.920 --> 1:00:50.440
<v Speaker 1>and it was all Trump people. It was all they had. Margarita's.

1:00:50.880 --> 1:00:56.280
<v Speaker 1>Oh god, I was sending pictures to Mitch and in

1:00:56.320 --> 1:01:00.240
<v Speaker 1>the but what's very young people was surprised. It was

1:01:00.240 --> 1:01:02.960
<v Speaker 1>like all people. It was his kid's age five to thirty,

1:01:03.040 --> 1:01:06.880
<v Speaker 1>all the district attorneys and all this. We're tremendous spread,

1:01:06.920 --> 1:01:09.919
<v Speaker 1>great prime rib it was. It was, my wife said,

1:01:09.920 --> 1:01:14.760
<v Speaker 1>except for the debate. It was a nice party, amendous spread,

1:01:15.360 --> 1:01:18.960
<v Speaker 1>nicest party I've ever been. Yeah, the greatest spread ever.

1:01:21.040 --> 1:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>All Right, I gotta go Gil, alright, he's gotta go

1:01:23.200 --> 1:01:27.760
<v Speaker 1>do the some people are saying, some people are saying,

1:01:27.800 --> 1:01:32.560
<v Speaker 1>I hear Mike Palm, thanks Dr thank you, thank you,

1:01:32.640 --> 1:01:34.960
<v Speaker 1>thank you for the whole season. Mikey, thank you, Buddy,

1:01:35.080 --> 1:01:39.439
<v Speaker 1>appreciate all right, you talk to Dr Bob. We'll wrap

1:01:39.480 --> 1:01:42.640
<v Speaker 1>it up for Mike Palm, for Todd wish for the

1:01:42.760 --> 1:01:46.520
<v Speaker 1>great Dr Bob, Thank you, Bob, appreciate as always, man's

1:01:46.520 --> 1:01:51.160
<v Speaker 1>good um r I POSHATAI. Well we'll never have it back,

1:01:51.200 --> 1:01:53.560
<v Speaker 1>but we can always have the memories. Uh. Good luck

1:01:53.600 --> 1:01:56.040
<v Speaker 1>to everybody with all your Super Bowl fifty five bets

1:01:56.400 --> 1:01:59.560
<v Speaker 1>either on the game uh spread, money line or total.

1:02:00.080 --> 1:02:01.760
<v Speaker 1>Certainly with all your prop bets as well for all

1:02:01.800 --> 1:02:03.720
<v Speaker 1>of us on the Beating the book megapod, thanks for

1:02:03.720 --> 1:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>listening today, Thanks for listening all season long. We'll have

1:02:06.600 --> 1:02:09.560
<v Speaker 1>another podcast and start the off season in a few weeks.

1:02:09.560 --> 1:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for listening. Good luck with all

1:02:11.080 --> 1:02:11.480
<v Speaker 1>your backs.