Sperm Edwards

They look like Underoos.

lmao It's quite simple -- they make the odds to get 50% of the money taking each side. That may lead to more individual games getting skewed a bit, but moving a point spread even 2-3 points (over true expected results) per instance, but it isn't going to move the betting nearly as much as moving the expected win total by 5 games. In theory, if the true expected-outcome spreads are dead-on, and they get skewed in favor of the Jets' fans expected bidding more than their opponents, then you should be betting against the Jets each week, and even if they win you'd still theoretically win more than you lose, but even now with 17 games that may not be a large enough sample size to rely upon long-term data -- even crap teams can get lucky & draw lots of key opponent injuries & they win more than they probably would have been expected to if it was full strength Jets vs full strength opponents (the 2015 Jets come to mind). Or far simpler, just look up their recent records against the spreads: I don't know what lines they're using, or if it's an aggregate of a few since sometimes there's a 0.5 or even 1 point disparity, but the Jets were allegedly 6-10-1 against the spread last year. I don't know what their expected win total was by adding up games they were favorites or dogs each week (I don't know if they were underdogs on 10 games, 8 games, 12 games, etc.), independent of the preseason win total O/U line.

It's a bit early to start lumping in Love with 60K-yard HOF QBs, no?

Even with the loftiest hopes, every May we aren't favored to win 14 games. I'll grant you this is a betting site with lines that move based on the action (or anticipated action, in this case) - which often does skew things to the Jets before reality sets in - rather than pure outcome predictions. Still, it's draftkings & not just a single, casual, homer Jets fan's prediction. Will be interesting to see how much the lines move, but beyond it being interesting it of course means nothing. I don't have a draftkings account, but put it this way: the best bet I can think of is that the opening over-under on the 2024 Jets season isn't going to be 14. If it is I'd finally sign up for an account.

Please just skip right to the playoffs. The '23 hype notwithstanding, the last time we were this heavily favored to win this many games, in preseason, was '99. So we probably shouldn't watch this year, as it's probably only downhill from here, right on cue.

There's some logic to that. I was purely thinking in terms of the money, while ignoring any satisfaction peripheral to betting payouts.

NOS S’ECURB?

I think the hottest seats are likely in Arizona with the roof opened. Since they close it if it gets too hot now, probably Miami, if they have a home Sept game without clouds/rain.

The best bet looks like plopping down $2000 to win $100 that Trevor Lawrence will not win the NFL MVP award.

That doesn’t seem right. My friend wouldn’t have bought it if he knew Rodgers was going to get injured and then they were going to change the uniform. It would be best if Woody just exchanged them for free. And then sell the team to someone who hires winners.

The only thing that made the officiating less tolerable was listening to Stan Van Gundy commenting on how every call should go against the Knicks, right on cue. Needed a unified opinion on SVG from the fans in MSG, with Hart filling him in on what it is they're saying.

Is he going to "credit back" the fans who bought a '23 Rodgers jersey, worn by the player for just four plays before it was laid to rest & the team changed the uniform? Asking for a friend. Also for that friend's wife.

Particularly with hindsight benefit, it's not debatable what was the wrong - or most-wrong - move. In no small part because I don't know one prospect from the other beyond the positions they play, at the time I could certainly sympathize with the pick, though, since the other issue is that - while it'll help mask inadequacies to a degree - even having multiple serious weapons on the roster doesn't make a crappy QB into a good one. This principle is also known as the Matt Leinart Theorem (reprised to a large degree by Jameis Winston). I can get past them swinging & missing on him, even at the expense of simultaneously missing out on some great players. I can get past them not taking someone at the very bottom of the draft like Purdy because nobody saw that coming (including San Fran, otherwise they'd have grabbed him at least a round earlier). It's harder to swallow whiffing on Zach (or Darnold before him, or Hackenberg before him) when they did so because they passed on opportunities to draft QBs who didn't bust 2016 Jared Goff -- turned down the trade offer to move up to #1, instead opting to hold onto franchise-tagged Wilkerson + pick #20 (Darron Lee) and the following year's 1st rounder (Jamal Adams) instead. Then took Hackenberg in round 2 only to see Dak Prescott go in round 4. 2017 -- Pat Mahomes or Deshaun Watson. Took Jamal Adams instead, even after Chicago was kind enough to remove Trubisky from consideration. 2018 -- Josh Allen (Darnold instead). Or holding onto their early pick to use another way, and taking Lamar Jackson at the bottom of round 1, trading up from the 2nd round as Baltimore did. 2019 -- ok there was no one to be had, but they weren't QB shopping that year anyway 2020 -- Jordan Love and Jalen Hurts. I can get past love, who was boom-or-busty and all, but in round 2 they had pick #49 and Hurts went #53. Ended up trading down a bit to grab Denzel Mims. Ouch. It's not like every good/great QB went #1 overall when the team with the top pick was dead-set on taking a QB, so there just weren't opportunities to grab them. This is 8 of the game's top 10-12 QBs were right there for the taking. This is depressing.

QB processing speed has traditionally been something that gets better with experience. For some (most) the bridge is just too far to ever cross, of course, but it’s just not accurate that everyone who starts out really lousy & overwhelmed stays such. Its easier now in no small part because technology makes that learning curve faster than having to literally watch film from a projector (limiting how many things there are to watch, and how exhaustingly long it surely took to get through it) before again practicing to translate that to the field. Cuts that time to a small fraction, as well as the time it takes teams’ film guys to compile them for the players. Along with comparatively cushy rule changes that disproportionately favor the offense, it’s undoubtedly a big reason why young QBs mature so much faster now than before, when it used to be pretty common to be overwhelmed after getting drafted and it took years for things to seem to slow down enough where a QB isn’t so easily fooled & confused, if not outright overwhelmed. Marino was brought up earlier; well how many rookies before him were that good right away? Maybe there was one but I can’t think of any offhand, and anyway it was preposterously unusual at best. Even a prolific HOF passer like Fouts was mostly awful until he was about 30. Nothing like now, where it’s hardly uncommon for rookies to be deserved pro bowlers and for rookie & 2nd year QBs carry their teams to the playoffs. Did Fouts lack processing speed for 5 years? Did Testaverde? Captain Wonderlic Ryan Fitzpatrick? It’s not hard to list many others. For some it just clicks later than for others. For most it never does so it’s hardly worth sticking it out with someone struggling so badly for 2-3 seasons when the odds are he’ll never be good enough anyway. It’s too hard to predict, and regimes change while waiting in the meantime, if you don’t consistently see “it” early on. Doesn’t mean none of them could’ve planned out into a usable starter for a while. It means it’s not worth finding out if he’s in that lower percentage who will, when it’s pretty easy to find better in the meantime and when that waiting costs coaching and FO jobs while teams wait.

Marino isn’t a great example because back when he took it no one really cared much how they did, so the can’t prep wasn’t put in by the players before taking it. Never mind there weren’t as many old tests floating around to practice, or strategic advice given to skip any questions that take longer and come back to them last. Could be he just spent too much time on literally one or two earlier questions and never saw half the questions after them, but bad scores presume he was too dumb to solve most of them quickly rather than effectively employing a strategy that would guarantee seeing all the fast-solved ones. The wonderlic is stupid for this purpose because it doesn’t eliminate problems that take more than 2-4 seconds to solve. If it was 500 quick questions in a time frame and the score was based on how many solved correctly then it’d have more use in evaluating someone who only has 2-4 seconds to choose his action wisely. Even then it’s an issue because fatigue in consecutive problem solving can set in (even when going no huddle, football plays get breaks between the plays; they’re not rapid fire one after the other with zero seconds in between them). So really I’d fall back on that test not being translatable: The Jets had one of these Wonderlic champs not so long ago, who at least was athletic enough, threw a football well enough, and had requisite size enough to get drafted. Then when he got his chance he put on a clinic on how - when the OL is struggling - you don’t get 7-30 seconds to solve math/logic problems from a safe desk, as he took like 8 sacks in his only start filling in for a comparatively mush-brained Sanchez who sucked yet was still far, far better. The Wonderlic should be given to coaches, though. Jets coaches in particular, lol.