Superbowl Seahawks vs Broncos

Seahawks are going to the Superbowl. Wooo!

Go Broncos~! denver represent. def looking forward to this matchup

As every year i'll watch it saying to myself "man, you really have to start watching this sport more" next thing i know its superbowl again

On January 20 2014 02:04 Daut wrote: http://www.youtube.com/embed/dBR2fSBNvRs

A lot of people thought Sherman was gonna pull a Booker-T and call Crabtree a nigga.

Go Broncos.
I must say i rooted for the 49ers though vs Seattle...but Seattle vs Denver is a very interesting matchup as well now

Had both 9ers and Seahawks as favorites over Denver and New England, didn't see anything that made me change my mind.

On January 19 2014 23:38 MezmerizePLZ wrote: Go Broncos~! denver represent. def looking forward to this matchup

Peyton will be known as the GOAT after he torches Richard Sherman

Go Broncos

Fucking 49ers ran so bad with the refs GSUS

Seahawks ran like the fucking sun to win that game. Hope they get buried by the Broncos

On January 20 2014 19:23 JonnyCosMo wrote: Fucking 49ers ran so bad with the refs GSUS Seahawks ran like the fucking sun to win that game. Hope they get buried by the Broncos

Peyton is going to put the PEYN on the SeaCOCKS.






I'll see myself out.

On January 20 2014 01:56 ERASA wrote: As every year i'll watch it saying to myself "man, you really have to start watching this sport more" next thing i know its superbowl again

haha same for me usually, but this was the first year i followed the whole regular season and watched all playoffs games. It was well worth it!

Super psyched for superbowl

49's fan, now a Broncos fan, fuck Sherman and fuck Seahawks fan for throwing garbage at Bowman while he was getting carted off.

This might be wayy early.. But I'm heavily favoring the Broncos in this match up

Who was talking about you? LOL

On January 21 2014 01:16 TheHuHu3 wrote: I'll see myself out.

hahahahah

Daut plz suggest bets

Broncos are currently a slight favorite but i'm rooting for the Seahawks!

as a fan i want the Broncos to win. but i think Seahawks +3 is very tempting, and if it gets to hawks +3.5 i'd jump on that if i still had money on any sportsbook.

I know everyone is jumping on the Broncos bandwagon if they haven't already because of Sherman, but I think the Seahawks match up well against the Broncos. Number 1 defense against the best passing offense...something has to give. Plus over the course of the season the Broncos defense hasn't been dominant, although they have been playing very well lately. Still, If the spread is Seahawks +3 I'd take that in a second.

Cold weather favors the running game of the Seahawks.

as much as i hate Pete Caroll since back from the USC days I still gotta respect that man's greatness.

tempted to throw down on seahawks again...they ran really good last time to win me a nice little chunk might as well gambol on them again!

THOUGHTS?

I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5

The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one

On January 22 2014 13:49 NotSorry wrote: Cold weather favors the running game of the Seahawks.

weather not making much of a difference in the playoffs so far

Yeah but Peyton hasn't played in cold weather yet, this postseason. He is a different quarterback with gloves on, and he hasn't really been tested yet. The AFC is a lot weaker then the NFC I think Seahawks defense gets it done.

GOOO SEAHAWKS.. northwest is the best quadrant of the us!

On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one

sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho.

tell me to fire off and i'll do it!

On January 22 2014 15:17 YoMeR wrote: as much as i hate Pete Caroll since back from the USC days I still gotta respect that man's greatness.

his greatness at sucking dick?

On January 23 2014 18:40 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On January 22 2014 15:17 YoMeR wrote: as much as i hate Pete Caroll since back from the USC days I still gotta respect that man's greatness. his greatness at sucking dick?

that and coaching football teams to elite status.

On January 23 2014 18:13 YoMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho. tell me to fire off and i'll do it!

What is all this talk about +3? I've personally never seen it higher than 2 at pinnacle. If you can get +3 that seems like a nice bet, but I can't see 3 being offered at any major books unless it has adjusted vig on it like sea +3 -130/den -3 +110 etc. It's your money bro the best thing I can tell you from experience in these situations is that you should bet what you feel and not take anyone else's picks. Nothing is worse than tailing someone and losing when you ended up being right yourself :D

On January 23 2014 21:20 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2014 18:13 YoMeR wrote:   On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho. tell me to fire off and i'll do it! What is all this talk about +3? I've personally never seen it higher than 2 at pinnacle. If you can get +3 that seems like a nice bet, but I can't see 3 being offered at any major books unless it has adjusted vig on it like sea +3 -130/den -3 +110 etc. It's your money bro the best thing I can tell you from experience in these situations is that you should bet what you feel and not take anyone else's picks. Nothing is worse than tailing someone and losing when you ended up being right yourself :D

they were +3 on Bovada, or at least were recently, dunno what the line is atm.

edit: confirmed still +3 (-115) on Bovada (Denver -3 (-105))

Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5

line is now 47 (-105) on Bovada btw

Broncos finish this up. Seattle will get run over since they are not at home. Russ Wilson sucks. The only threat is marshawn lynch, he is a beast...

On January 23 2014 21:20 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2014 18:13 YoMeR wrote:   On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho. tell me to fire off and i'll do it! What is all this talk about +3? I've personally never seen it higher than 2 at pinnacle. If you can get +3 that seems like a nice bet, but I can't see 3 being offered at any major books unless it has adjusted vig on it like sea +3 -130/den -3 +110 etc. It's your money bro the best thing I can tell you from experience in these situations is that you should bet what you feel and not take anyone else's picks. Nothing is worse than tailing someone and losing when you ended up being right yourself :D

You're probably right. But still I hate taking responsibility for my actions like a reasonable and responsible adult would. I need someone to tell me to do something retarded with my money!

WHO IS GOIGN TO WIN THIS FUCKIN GAME

someone compare this game to a mma fight

Still waiting on Daut to post so I can throw down the hammer

Prob will go with Broncos regardless I think. Hoping a lot of money comes in on Seattle late so the line will move in the Broncos favor

On January 23 2014 21:28 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2014 21:20 RaiNKhAN wrote:   On January 23 2014 18:13 YoMeR wrote:   On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho. tell me to fire off and i'll do it! What is all this talk about +3? I've personally never seen it higher than 2 at pinnacle. If you can get +3 that seems like a nice bet, but I can't see 3 being offered at any major books unless it has adjusted vig on it like sea +3 -130/den -3 +110 etc. It's your money bro the best thing I can tell you from experience in these situations is that you should bet what you feel and not take anyone else's picks. Nothing is worse than tailing someone and losing when you ended up being right yourself :D they were +3 on Bovada, or at least were recently, dunno what the line is atm. edit: confirmed still +3 (-115) on Bovada (Denver -3 (-105))   Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 line is now 47 (-105) on Bovada btw

I'm on u47 at -105.

I'll live-bet the rest of my bets.

i bet seahawks +3 -120 on bodog just now. saw pinny was at +2 and just snatched it. real small bet though

So, if we believe all of the SB weather forecasts is it now safe to take the over?

The running game is going to win this for Seattle. Denver cant win if they never get on the field. Seattle will run it down there throat taking the max amount of time each play that they can.

Prater will win it for Denver

On January 29 2014 14:21 Daut wrote: i bet seahawks +3 -120 on bodog just now. saw pinny was at +2 and just snatched it. real small bet though

But how will yomer and timdawg tail you if it's real small? The people need words like "slammed" or "snap bet" in order to shove on your pick

On January 27 2014 22:09 PuertoRican wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2014 21:28 bigredhoss wrote:   On January 23 2014 21:20 RaiNKhAN wrote:   On January 23 2014 18:13 YoMeR wrote:   On January 22 2014 22:33 RaiNKhAN wrote: I like denver here, but historically I haven't picked a superbowl correctly since green bay a few yrs ago. I don't think seattle will stop manning but I think the same is true for denver as well in regard to stopping wilson. Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 The biggest factor here in taking denver is that seattle won't be playing at home where they have been dominant. Tough game imo, but it will be a good one sea hawks at +3 is so tempting tho. tell me to fire off and i'll do it! What is all this talk about +3? I've personally never seen it higher than 2 at pinnacle. If you can get +3 that seems like a nice bet, but I can't see 3 being offered at any major books unless it has adjusted vig on it like sea +3 -130/den -3 +110 etc. It's your money bro the best thing I can tell you from experience in these situations is that you should bet what you feel and not take anyone else's picks. Nothing is worse than tailing someone and losing when you ended up being right yourself :D they were +3 on Bovada, or at least were recently, dunno what the line is atm. edit: confirmed still +3 (-115) on Bovada (Denver -3 (-105))   Over might be a good play and the line is relatively low at 47.5 line is now 47 (-105) on Bovada btw I'm on u47 at -105. I'll live-bet the rest of my bets.

line is now 47.5

edit - not sure if source is legit

On January 29 2014 20:28 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2014 14:21 Daut wrote: i bet seahawks +3 -120 on bodog just now. saw pinny was at +2 and just snatched it. real small bet though But how will yomer and timdawg tail you if it's real small? The people need words like "slammed" or "snap bet" in order to shove on your pick

That's why we have you!

----------

Today is Chinese New Years. It just so happens that 2014 is the year of the Horse.

I wonder if this is a sign that Denver will win...

A sign of what ?
Giant flying spaghetti ?

line moved to -2 Denver on some books...still thinking it will continue to move in favor of betting Denver

Can someone explain the whole +3 -120 thing. Now the line is at -2? What does it mean? Maybe betting is different here or im missing something very obvious

On February 01 2014 13:09 Hoolz_1907 wrote: Can someone explain the whole +3 -120 thing. Now the line is at -2? What does it mean? Maybe betting is different here or im missing something very obvious

Plus points and Minus points work the same way in all sports.

Example results with Seattle getting +3 points at -120:

• Denver defeats Seattle (30-27) = Your bet will be a push/cancelled because your +3 points makes the total score 30-30.
• Denver defeats Seattle (30-28) = You win your bet because adding +3 points to Seattle's score results in 30-31 in your favor.
• Denver defeats Seattle (30-26) = You lose your bet because adding +3 points to Seattle's score results in 30-29 in Denver's favor.

Both teams come from the 2 states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Coincidence?? I think not.

One of my roommates just bombed Seattle on the moneyline and the under 48 1/2. Not entirely sure but I think that's the exact opposite of what the public's betting. Has anyone else locked their bets in?

On February 01 2014 15:11 Raid wrote: Not entirely sure but I think that's the exact opposite of what the public's betting

afaik the last 3 years were winners for the public:

gb -2.5, nyg +2.5, baltimore +3.5. anyone free to correct if this is wrong

This opened at pick em and 50, right? I've been reading that most of the money has been on Denver and the under so far, but most of those under bets were being made when the weather forecast was still in doubt.

On February 01 2014 15:58 Raid wrote: This opened at pick em and 50, right? I've been reading that most of the money has been on Denver and the under so far, but most of those under bets were being made when the weather forecast was still in doubt.

It's supposed to be in the 40s during the first half of the game, and then go to the 30s during the second half. It won't be freezing, but it mainly depends on the winds, which at the moment, don't look too crazy.

I'm still feeling okay with my u47 bet, and I'll make another bet of u48.5 later today and then focus on live betting the over/under tomorrow. I have some nice props lined up that I'll bet today after UFC is over.

My bets so far:

Elway acknowledged before end of 1st qtr -115 (1.5u)
A FG made in 1st quarter +100* vs No FG made in 1st quarter (1u)
R.Wilson 1st rush att ov 5½ yds +100 (.5u)
R.Wilson scores a rushing TD +370 (.5u)
G.Tate receiving yards/. Under 49½ -125 (1u)
SEA sacks DEN over 1½ times -110 (.5u)
SEA makes more FG's -125* vs DEN makes more FG's (1u)
Seattle Seahawks/Denver Broncos Under 47 -105 (1u)
Seattle Seahawks/Denver Broncos Under 48 -105 (1u)

live broadcast of Anthem only, "No tear" is winner if he is not shown
K.Moreno has tear on cheek during Anthem +170
No tear on either cheek during Anthem -230

----------

"The tears?" Moreno is asked.

"Not uncommon at all," he says. "It's always been that way for me, all the way back to high school and college. During the anthem it's always quiet and still, so I take in the moment and say a little prayer. Usually there's no camera on me. I thank the Lord for letting me play the game. I thank Him for everything. I run through my whole life right there at that moment. Even the bad stuff."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20140108/knowshon-moreno/

^ She knows that it's a big deal and that people have bets on her.



^ She hits the high note every week in her performances, and she goes extra long with it because that's how opera singers do the final final of songs.

----------

There has been movement on Fleming going Over/Under 135 seconds (2 minutes and 15 seconds). The Over 135 seconds was just at -140 about ten minutes ago, and now it's at -110.

----------

Fleming knows how big this event is, and she knows that there are people betting on how long her version of the National Anthem will be. Also, she was given the opportunity to do what she wanted with the song, which means it's possible that she might sing in English and another language (she knows how to sing in 7 languages).

Since this is the first time an opera singer has ever sung the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, I think she will want to make this special as possible, and it won't go fast like many are thinking. She's also a New York native, which means she will want to make this special for her local fans too.

----------

Super Bowl 47 – Alicia Keys – Anthem Length: 2:35

Super Bowl 46 – Kelly Clarkson – Anthem Length: 1:34

Super Bowl 45 – Christina Aguilera – Anthem Length: 1:54

Super Bowl 44 – Carrie Underwood – Anthem Length: 1:47

Super Bowl 43 – Jennifer Hudson – Anthem Length: 2:10

Super Bowl 42 – Jordin Sparks – Anthem Length: 1:54

Super Bowl 41 – Billy Joel – Anthem Length: 1:30

Super Bowl 40 – Aaron Neville & Aretha Franklin – Anthem Length: 2:08

----------

My final pick: National Anthem over 135.00 seconds -110 (1u)

hahahahah what a bet

fuck should I bet 1k on singing........................whos keeping track of the time???

whys the under favourite?????????? its like 1.7xx

On February 02 2014 14:49 Zadan wrote: whys the under favourite?????????? its like 1.7xx

Handicappers were thinking that since Renee Fleming is an opera singer, she wouldn't give a shit about football and the Super Bowl, and try to finish the National Anthem as soon as possible. The lines reflect this thought, as money keeps coming in on the Under for all the lines. Over 135 seconds is now +105.

ppl are betting hard on unders

On February 01 2014 15:30 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On February 01 2014 15:11 Raid wrote: Not entirely sure but I think that's the exact opposite of what the public's betting afaik the last 3 years were winners for the public: gb -2.5, nyg +2.5, baltimore +3.5. anyone free to correct if this is wrong

I'm fairly sure public money was on the other side (Steelers, Patriots, 49ers)

She mentions having all sorts of choirs and shit in the National Anthem. If she starts singing, and then other choirs and shit start singing in the middle, the song will go longer for sure.

On February 02 2014 15:06 Zadan wrote: ppl are betting hard on unders

Yeah, crazy bets coming in.

Over 130 seconds is at -160 and keeps dropping. I'm gonna bet that if it gets to -140 or better.

----------

Updates lines:

Over 130 seconds is -170
Over 135 seconds is -115 (big line movement, considering it was just +120 about 5 minutes ago)

you've convinced me
betting big on under 130

I mean over

Did any of you guys lock in yet? I ended up taking Seattle +115 and the under 48 1/2, was thinking of taking a shot with Seattle's defense + special teams to score a TD @ +252, too. Good luck, fellas!

Made a small bet on Seattle, i've probably heard of at least two guys playing in this years superbowl so im pretty confident in my choice.

bet 25 on broncos at -2 because I have a mancrush on peyton manning

Final bets before the game starts:

National Anthem over 135.00 seconds -110 (1u)
Elway acknowledged before end of 1st qtr -115 (1.5u)
A FG made in 1st quarter +100* vs No FG made in 1st quarter (1u)
R.Wilson 1st rush att ov 5½ yds +100 (.5u)
R.Wilson scores a rushing TD +370 (.5u)
G.Tate receiving yards/. Under 49½ -125 (1u)
SEA sacks DEN over 1½ times -110 (.5u)
SEA makes more FG's -125* vs DEN makes more FG's (1u)
Seattle Seahawks/Denver Broncos Under 47 -105 (1u)
Seattle Seahawks/Denver Broncos Under 48 -105 (1u)

No one bet on the "Omaha" o/u? That has to be one of the funnier prop bets.

i put $50 on pt total under 48, don't think i'm going to bet anything else

THAT WAS UNDER 135 seconds ROFL

Fuck that bitch... She went super fast like the handicappers said.

LOL joe namath jumping the gun with coin toss

fuck

ok go hawks

oh boy

lmao at a safety...

flipped a coin....bet on Denver..... Bad Start

PERCY HARVIN SIGHTING

Does that safety count as a defensive score?

any live streams?

There's one on superbowl.foxsports.com

Not feeling particularly good about the under.

On February 02 2014 17:47 Raid wrote: Not feeling particularly good about the under.

yea me either :|

Did they show John Elway yet? Or even mention his name?

don't believe so

By the time the 2nd half starts, the weather will feel like it's about 35 degrees. Not sure how much that will bother either team by then.

well...under looking better...

Sigh... The Bronco's barely had the ball in the 1st quarter, thus John Elway wasn't able to be recognized...

On February 02 2014 18:16 bigredhoss wrote: well...under looking better...

The 3rd quarter is what I'm most worried about, not so much the first half. (for the Under hitting)

The Bronco's won't get to score much in the first half, but might come back strong in the 2nd half.

Denver's run defense is awesome, too bad their secondary sucks.

Denver looks like they have missed some serious gym time.

hm i think if you told me denver would have 0 points over 2/3 of the way through 2nd qtr i would have put my networth and sold my kidneys to put on the under

L O L

GG

fuck

manning cementing his legacy as a choke artist

lol good god denver

The Denver Bronco's are the equivalent of Urijah Faber in the UFC.

I gotta say I just watched my first half game of the NFL ever and this has to be the most boring sport i've ever seen.

Also its sucks to be Mayweather as he supposedly bet 10milly on Denver

Am thinking I might hedge and take the over in the 2nd half.

On February 02 2014 18:50 Spitfiree wrote: I gotta say I just watched my first half game of the NFL ever and this has to be the most boring sport i've ever seen. Also its sucks to be Mayweather as he supposedly bet 10milly on Denver

And there's no way to hedge a 10 million dollar bet afaik.

I just got lucky there. I had 2 units on Under 14 points in the 2nd quarter, so it ended up as a push.

well at least I'm gonna cover my 1k singing bet fuck
goooo hawwwwkkk

There was a prop bet that Bruno Mars would wear his trademark Fedora hat during the halftime. I think a bunch of people took an L on that one. I only know 1 song or so by him, so I didn't bother with the bet.

There was also a prop bet of "1 or more Red Hot Chilli Peppers goes shirtless," which would have cashed here. It wasn't available at 5dimes though.

If that guy wasn't lip-syncing that was a pretty good live performance.

I don't know that much about american football but what are the chances any team comes back from 22-0 after halftime?

not good when they go down 29-0 first play of 3rd quarter t.t

Broncos are as dead as my under bet.

Lololol unreal punting by broncos.... Ship the free monies

On February 02 2014 19:32 Raid wrote: Broncos are as dead as my under bet.

yep =[ i put last minute bet on 2h under too

On February 02 2014 19:35 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On February 02 2014 19:32 Raid wrote: Broncos are as dead as my under bet. yep =[ i put last minute bet on 2h under too

Unless Seattle's defense pitches a shutout. They appear to be still playing very hard.

Its the super bowl...prob will play hard till the last whistle knowing Pete carroll

shouldn't denver be going for it there on 4th down?

Yeah, done watching this game. Denver lost. Commercials have been super fucking shitty except the movie trailers and the teasers of the return of Jack Bauer :D.

On February 02 2014 19:45 bigredhoss wrote: shouldn't denver be going for it there on 4th down?

Yea always IMO... If I put heavy action and Denver and saw that id be so tilted

Whoa dodged a bullet there.

lol Aikman just kill yourself: "yeah, you gotta do the math, they need 4 touchdowns and 3 2-point conversions"

when score is 29-0

what in the mother fuck

HOW DOES HE NOT GO DOWN THERE ROFL

Wow this is getting ugly. Hope Seattle doesn't go into some stupid prevent defense now.

Russell Wilson wins MVP was at +1000 or +2000, or something like that. I didn't bet it though.

He has a good chance to win it here.

fuck

G_G

Crazy how there hasn't been any QB sacks in this game.

One of the worst finals game I've seen of any sport of recent memory in the past few years

I dont even know the rules to football but I watched this at someone's house and kept laughing every time the orange guys fucked up so miserably.

On February 02 2014 21:53 PuertoRican wrote:

The pornhub twitter is pretty great.

GG won a shit ton of prop bets on this one..

So brutal. Really wanted to see Manning do well and take down the Superbowl. Pretty embarrassing

Worst part about watching this game was knowing that if the 49ers didn't run so fucking bad vs the Seahawks they woulda womped the Broncos too.

On February 02 2014 20:06 PuertoRican wrote: Russell Wilson wins MVP was at +1000 or +2000, or something like that. I didn't bet it though. He has a good chance to win it here.

was this late in the game? cause i bet it before the game at +375

damn cosmo are u a logistician?

On February 02 2014 19:57 bigredhoss wrote: lol Aikman just kill yourself: "yeah, you gotta do the math, they need 4 touchdowns and 3 2-point conversions" when score is 29-0

uh 4 tds and 3 2-point conversions is 30.................................

On February 03 2014 02:32 Venrae wrote: Show nested quote + On February 02 2014 19:57 bigredhoss wrote: lol Aikman just kill yourself: "yeah, you gotta do the math, they need 4 touchdowns and 3 2-point conversions" when score is 29-0 uh 4 tds and 3 2-point conversions is 30.................................

LOL is this real life?? that's only true if you assume they don't kick the xp after the first 2 TD+2pt conversions, which is retarded. obviously the implication was that they needed 3 2-pt conversions with the score being 29-0.

8+8+8+7 = 31

On February 02 2014 23:33 JonnyCosMo wrote: Worst part about watching this game was knowing that if the 49ers didn't run so fucking bad vs the Seahawks they woulda womped the Broncos too.

Fucking posts like this. It's like people like you just assume the reffing is always only on one side. Like the reffing is never on the other side

On February 04 2014 02:51 Trav94 wrote: Show nested quote + On February 02 2014 23:33 JonnyCosMo wrote: Worst part about watching this game was knowing that if the 49ers didn't run so fucking bad vs the Seahawks they woulda womped the Broncos too. Fucking posts like this. It's like people like you just assume the reffing is always only on one side. Like the reffing is never on the other side

i don't see how that negates his point?

On February 03 2014 03:12 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On February 03 2014 02:32 Venrae wrote:   On February 02 2014 19:57 bigredhoss wrote: lol Aikman just kill yourself: "yeah, you gotta do the math, they need 4 touchdowns and 3 2-point conversions" when score is 29-0 uh 4 tds and 3 2-point conversions is 30................................. LOL is this real life?? that's only true if you assume they don't kick the xp after the first 2 TD+2pt conversions, which is retarded. obviously the implication was that they needed 3 2-pt conversions with the score being 29-0. 8+8+8+7 = 31

4 tds, 3 2pt is the minimum needed to be ahead. I don't see why you're so insulted by this point.

On February 04 2014 04:15 Venrae wrote: Show nested quote + On February 03 2014 03:12 bigredhoss wrote:   On February 03 2014 02:32 Venrae wrote:   On February 02 2014 19:57 bigredhoss wrote: lol Aikman just kill yourself: "yeah, you gotta do the math, they need 4 touchdowns and 3 2-point conversions" when score is 29-0 uh 4 tds and 3 2-point conversions is 30................................. LOL is this real life?? that's only true if you assume they don't kick the xp after the first 2 TD+2pt conversions, which is retarded. obviously the implication was that they needed 3 2-pt conversions with the score being 29-0. 8+8+8+7 = 31 4 tds, 3 2pt is the minimum needed to be ahead. I don't see why you're so insulted by this point.

probably because it's stupid and wrongly implies they needed 3 2-pt conversions, but if you're smart enough to use a computer you already know that, so nice troll i guess.

How does it wrongly imply that they need 3 2pt conversions? it's the minimum amount of TDs/FGs to be in the lead.

google "football scoring system" and use windows built-in calculator for some sick enlightenment

I played the sport for 10 years, I know the fucking scoring system. I have no idea what you're so upset about. His math is fine, it's the most probable way to earn 30 points in the least amount of possessions. You can do it in 2 2pt and 1pt PATs, but 2 2pt on the first two TD's is statistically unlikely, so his scoring to get 30 is the most likely way for the Broncos to have gained the lead

there's obviously no way to prove it, but i would lay 10-1 that he was not thinking of any of that given his consistently idiotic commentary.

i have to be honest though, i also didn't even think of that, and i do look like a tool with some of my comments lol. my bad..

It's all good bro, just funny you got so mad about it :^)

except they likely would have played for 29 not 30.