i am happy to know i am not the only one who fails to find value in Barnwell's analysis. I also understand why his year in Vegas was a total disaster
And it should be called Not That Tricky.mpx42 said:Barnwell should probably have his own thread at this point.
ifmanis5 said:And it should be called Not That Tricky.
if I did the math right he's going to be just about breakeven with a chance for a slight profit if the eagles win the east and the jags beat the titans next weekDrewDawg said:From Barnwell's preseason "Place Your Bets" column:
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135 Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69 Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15 Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200 Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200 Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66 Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52 Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33 Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120 Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50 Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50 Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300 Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76 Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19 Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21 Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16 Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92 Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104 Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440 Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26 Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300 Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300 Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
Ugh...sorry about the formatting. I'll fix later.
Still better That Billy Boy's NFL picks this year.nattysez said:Vegaswatch just kills Barnwell all the time. http://www.vegaswatch.org/search/label/Not%20That%20Tricky
It is funny. Barnwell actually had a decent column today. He blasted both Tomlin and MacCathy for their end of game decisions. He also surprisingly praised the Patriots and Coach Hoodie this week. I guess it's the case of the blind squirrel finding a nut or a defective clock being right twice a day.DrewDawg said:
BOLDED THE WINS
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135
Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69
Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15
Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200
Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200
Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66
Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52
Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33
Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120
Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50
Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50-------TITANS AND COLTS LEFT, NOT COUNTING YET
Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300
Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76-------ABOUT 50/50 PER DVOA
Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19
Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21
Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16
Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92
Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104
Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440
Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26
Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300
Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300
Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
So, his biggest hit will be the Eagles if they win the East. It's funny to see all the $20 bets then the $800 bet on the Raiders at -950
I think the local beat writers have gotten so good that for news about "your team" that the national guys are almost totally superfluous. Someone like Barnwell can only see stuff at the level of "well, the Pats lost Wilfork" whereas guys like Kyed and Volin can drill down into the replacements, what they're doing, what schemes they're employing, etc. The All-22 film has changed things; up until a couple years ago, (a guy like) Peter King asking coaches and GMs questions was one of the best sources of information we had. Now, we don't need him to ask that; we can see for ourselves if they're playing zone or man or blitzing or zone blocking or if someone screwed up the protection, etc. The bar has been raised.Dehere said:Is there anybody anymore that's really must-read or must-watch when it comes to NFL coverage outside of the games themselves?
Dr Z is gone. Peter King is the subject of 1000+ posts of ridicule in this forum. TMQ is self-parody. Simmons is recycling old shtick. Tanier, my favorite guy the last couple years, has fallen way off IMO, too clever by half and beating the same tired stories to death. Posnanski has never really been great on football. Whitlock is predictable. And the many TV shows covering the league are practically interchangeable.
Some teams have better beat guys than others but I don't find that there's a must-read guy out there anywhere. It's kind of striking how little value is added by the avalanche of opinion and analysis that's out there on the NFL.
Justin Tucker, Ravens
What, you were expecting anybody else?
I suspect that this game will come down to who can run their offensive scheme of choice more effectively
I think it will be exceedingly difficult for the team that loses the turnover battle to win this game.
tims4wins said:Barnwell may have hit a new low with his playoff previews today
m0ckduck said:
The thing about Barnwell is that he's so hellbent on debunking conventional wisdom at every turn that it leaves him with nothing to say at the end. I agree with Kliq above that there's some value in his columns— in the granular details, like his focus on Chung this Saturday, for example— but the overall predisposition towards 'every pervasive NFL truth that the general public believes in must by definition be wrong' is maddeningly boring and predictable. He almost tortured the facts into an argument that the Saints are just as good on the road as at home in today's column before finally relenting in the end.
In his own way, he's just as didactic and tiresome as a conventional-wisdom guy like Joe Morgan, but just in the opposite direction— he's Bizarro Joe Morgan. The problem is that, if you devote yourself to debunking every single narrative in football— from momentum doesn't exist, to Peyton Manning is fine in cold weather, to the Saints are great on the road— you're left with nothing to offer readers as a vision of the football universe beyond molecules randomly bouncing off each other.
m0ckduck said:
The thing about Barnwell is that he's so hellbent on debunking conventional wisdom at every turn that it leaves him with nothing to say at the end. I agree with Kliq above that there's some value in his columns— in the granular details, like his focus on Chung this Saturday, for example— but the overall predisposition towards 'every pervasive NFL truth that the general public believes in must by definition be wrong' is maddeningly boring and predictable. He almost tortured the facts into an argument that the Saints are just as good on the road as at home in today's column before finally relenting in the end.
In his own way, he's just as didactic and tiresome as a conventional-wisdom guy like Joe Morgan, but just in the opposite direction— he's Bizarro Joe Morgan. The problem is that, if you devote yourself to debunking every single narrative in football— from momentum doesn't exist, to Peyton Manning is fine in cold weather, to the Saints are great on the road— you're left with nothing to offer readers as a vision of the football universe beyond molecules randomly bouncing off each other.
ifmanis5 said:Barnwell's take on Colts/Pats: It'll come down to turnovers. Kthx, br0.
I think it will be exceedingly difficult for the team that loses the turnover battle to win this game.
mpx42 said:Those are hysterical. I wish I had seen them before.
Barnwell should probably have his own thread at this point.
Will there be a safety?
Yes: +900
No: -1300
There are about seven or eight safeties each year in the NFL. My unofficial count this year is eight, but for some reason, six of them involved these two teams in one way or another. Is that meaningful when it comes to predicting the likelihood of a safety in the Super Bowl? Absolutely not. You're looking at about a 3 percent chance of a safety happening, which means that the odds for "Yes" should be something like +3233. Betting "No" here, even at -1300, is one of the best prop bets you can make this year. Of course, you will have to risk $100 to win $7.69 in the process.
If you want to start forecasting a 49ers upset in Seattle this weekend, you might as well start by predicting they’ll win the turnover battle.
Here's hoping he blew his wad on this one for a third straight year.WayBackVazquez said:The best part of him getting his ass handed to him on the Super Bowl safety bet was that his research was inexplicably way off, and it was actually a very obviously bad math bet.
But there weren't eight safeties in the league that year, there were 21, plus one already in the playoffs. And there aren't "about seven or eight each year." In fact, the last time there had been single-digit safeties was 1969, when there were only 16 teams in the league. He put the bulk of his money (and advised his readers to do likewise) on a bet that mathematically was worse than betting a number on a roulette wheel.
On Super Bowl Sunday, the NFL’s Most Valuable Player was no match for the league’s most valuable contract.
On Super Bowl Sunday, the NFL’s Most Valuable Player was no match for the league’s most valuable contract.\Denver’s defense is basically split up into bargain-basement veteran reclamation projects signed to short-term deals from free agency (Mike Adams, Terrance Knighton, Paris Lenon, Shaun Phillips, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie), Day 3 draft picks (Omar Bolden, Malik Jackson, Danny Trevathan), and undrafted free agents (Carter, Duke Ihenacho, Mitch Unrein, Wesley Woodyard).
When they failed on fourth-and-2 from the Seattle 19-yard line with 1:06 left in the first half, they gave the ball back to Seattle, which ran two draws (sigh) to end the first half.
Reverend said:I don't actually understand the "most valuable contract" line... explain?
tims4wins said:Kind of interesting that Barnwell wrote a Super Bowl recap article the day after the game, and hasn't written a single thing in the 2 weeks since. Nothing has happened worthy of writing about? A one week vacation I understand, but two weeks seems like a bit much. Maybe Simmons canned him.
ConigliarosPotential said:Um...
http://grantland.com/features/the-betting-season/
...what the heck is the point of this article? In theory I suppose it's laudable to hold oneself accountable for one's predictions after the fact, but the headline "Another Disastrous Gambling Season" surely confirms everyone's worst thoughts about him, and the extent of his navel-gazing is frighteningly unnecessary.
So to recap, Atlanta would be giving up the #6 overall pick, the #37 overall pick, their 2015 AND 2016 first round picks, AND a second round pick next year to move up five spots. Sounds like a brilliant trade for them.Atlanta gets: First overall pick in this year’s draft.
Houston gets: Third overall pick in this year’s draft, Atlanta’s 2014 fifth-round pick, Atlanta’s 2015 first-round pick, and Jacksonville’s fourth-round pick (105) in this year’s draft.
Jacksonville gets: Sixth overall pick in this year’s draft, Atlanta’s 2016 first-round pick, Atlanta’s 2014 second-round pick (37), and Atlanta’s 2015 second-round pick.
What might be a problem, though, is the cost of trading up. Assuming the Falcons wanted to move from their sixth slot to the first pick, they’d have to pay a hefty price. The ol’ trade value chart says the first pick is worth 3,000 points, while the sixth pick is worth 1,600 points; Atlanta could deal its entire draft under that chart and still come up well short. It’ll unquestionably take at least one more future first-round pick, but given that general managers often (perhaps incorrectly) devalue future draft picks in trades, the Falcons are probably looking at more than their 2015 first to sweeten the pot. My guess is that it would take Atlanta’s 2014 and 2015 first-round picks, a third-rounder in 2014, and a second-rounder in 2016. And, at that price, are the Falcons better off waiting for the sixth pick, when they might be able to come away with a franchise left tackle to move the disappointing Sam Baker off Matt Ryan’s blind side? The decision could come to define this franchise over the next few years.
Yeah he had a few trades in that article of teams giving up a bushel of picks including multiple additional firsts to move up a few spots. Makes zero sense. Maybe when it's a year with a consensus #1 franchise QB but not this year.gtg807y said:And their 5th round pick this year as well, so six overall picks in exchange for the top spot this year. And if I did the math right on the ol' draft value chart, they're giving up at least 3600 in value (assuming those future picks are the last in their rounds) in exchange for the 3000 for the first round pick. So yeah, the Falcons, who had glaring depth problems last year, would probably love to make that trade.
How does this make any logical sense - only 1 in almost 20 drafts has a HOF in it? Yet we induct 5+ candidates every single year?
Of course it’s great to land a Hall of Fame player, but only about 6 percent of drafts include one