Joe Public
Gabibbo's Finest
I wish I could say that I was really prepared for this season, but the truth is I totally was not. I've been busy with nonsense for weeks at work and when I started to look at lines last night I thought to myself, "Holy mother of God, I don't even know who's starting at QB for all these teams."
Now, why I knew Blaine Gabbert was under center, I'll never understand, but that's another story.
Anyway, I can't claim to be as well versed in all things NFL as I've been heading into Week 1s in the past. And yet, there have been times when a ton of research did me no good at all, so we'll see what this season nets.
Being that the NFL now stretches out opening weekend into like seven days, let's start on Thursday.
What my thimble-full of knowledge told me about the Broncos was their offense had every opportunity to pick up where it left off and that thanks to steroids or coke or whatever, I may only be to name one starter on their defense.
But Baltimore lost quite a bit, the Super Bowl hangover and revenge for that horrible beat explained the line.
What I took from that game, and especially within the context of the Sunday games as well, is that I think it's hard to make the argument for true parity in the league.
I do think the NFL provides the opportunity for any franchise to succeed, but it's just like if you put 30 companies in the same building, some are just going to be run better than others. And because it's such a QB driven league, I feel like it's easier than ever to put the teams in to tiers.
The NFL wants points, they want to end games with Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, etc. doing interviews.
This is why I think it might be easy to over-react to Week 1 (as everyone always does) and easy to lose some things based on matchups.
They wanted Brees vs. Ryan, Romo vs. Manning, Flacco vs. Manning, Rogers vs. Kap ...
And when you have good teams & QBs up against like competition in Week One, I think it can be hard to pull a ton out of those games.
In Denver, great QB beats really good QB. But mostly because he throws for 7 TDs and Baltimore's defense—at least up against a guy who put points all over them last year too.
So, is Denver's offense good? Yes. Did Baltimore lose pieces? Yes. But this matchup was one that produced a ton of points last year too, and really the Broncos handled Baltimore in every game.
Which isn't to say this was an easy bet. It's instead to say, how much do you really take from that game other than the Broncos' offense is starting the season on the same page and Baltimore still needs to work out some kinks?
Does that mean Balty sucks? No. They still have Ray Rice, they still have the ability to stretch the field. But yes, they miss Pitta and Boldin. What I'm more interested in with them, though, is what their defense looks like in Week 2. I think their offense, especially against marginal defenses, will be fine.
The Donks on the other hand may be tough to get any value on. Peyton makes them a really public team.
From a matchup standpoint, I think you saw something similar in New Orleans.
Now, I didn't watch the whole of this game, so I'll be interested to hear from those who did, but I think it's a similar situation. Two good QBs, defenses that gave up points—but they did so to good QBs.
My questions from this one since I didn't see enough of it:
Really for me that's about all I need because I trust Brees to get some points week in and week out, and I trust Atlanta to score as well—especially at home which is where I'm going to look to play them anyway. But where Jackson had 70+ yards, 50 of them came on one play and he didn't look particularly fast, at least to me.
Same scenario in San Fran. Aaron Rogers vs. a system that makes Kap extremely formidable. Which is to say that you can't put Rogers and Kap on the same level, but you can put their offenses and what their offensive production should be on the same tier.
This, to me, is one of those games you just don't bet seriously. For fun, or props or the total, sure, but the offenses are good enough that it's kind of a coin flip. The wrong turnover flips that result.
Actually a large part of the reason I didn't watch a ton of this game was because early on you could see both offenses are there and ready to go. I just hope there's value to be had with them.
All right, enough of that larger point ridiculousness, let's talk about the team you all really care about.
No, not the Birds, they don't play until tomorrow night—in primetime, where they should be.
Let's talk about the Cleveland Football Browns.
Good God this team sucks.
Fine, it's a bit of an overreaction, but not much.
There were a couple of teams I saw touted as under the radar teams that may be much better than people think this year—and the Browns were one of them. Someone on ESPN had them as their survivor play today.
Do these idiots even look at the roster of these teams?
This Browns' secondary is awful (sorry, Joe Haden, but you're the extent of the talent back there). The Browns DL played really well against the run, but who cares in a passing league where you're just going to get torched for 12 yards a pass? Ryan Tannehill cut up the Browns today. Please tell me how it gets better for that defense.
I can't see it.
What I can see is teams giving the Browns their O-face as they put one on Cleveland's eyebrow.
I can also see Trent Richardson being a man. And him hating life all season as the Browns go 5-11 this year.
And since we've talked about good teams that look ready to roll (GB, SF, Denver, etc.), let's talk about how we can already start to fill out the bottom of this league.
Hello, Jacksonville.
Another one of the very few things I heard about before this season is that the Jags are going to run with one of the youngest secondaries in the league. Really? With an offense run by Blaine Gabbert? This team has trainwreck written all over it.
It also may have Los Angeles written all over it, because the NFL doesn't care about you, Jacksonville. They never have.
Oakland and the Jets were also mentioned as awful, but Oakland, to their credit, traveled east well in the AM and held their own against a markedly better team.
And the Jets won.
Now, the Jets have to come back and play in one of those miserable Thursday night games this week, so you know, buttfumble pending. But they are 1-0.
Sadly, it's tough to see a lot of value coming on NE this week. One, they're a hugely public team. Two, the perception is the Jets are going to suck.
Also, in watching parts of that game a couple of things really jumped out. First, the fumbles. That's not going to happen with the Pats every week. Second, when they needed to get it down, they still got it done. Now, Danny Amendola may not catch six consecutive balls thrown his way in clutch time or whatever it was, but the point is, NE still has the schemes and the talent to get guys open and Brady can still put the ball where it needs to be.
That won't win every game, but it should consistently put points on the board. Were this Thursday night game on Sunday, you'd have to figure NE for 24+ this week. And yet, it's a Thursday nighter and those tend to start slow because they're a flawed idea.
I didn't watch Bears/Cincy until the end. And it was nice to see Cincy's lack of discipline never changes. And that AJ Green is just going to eat the Browns secondary alive. He's just going to kill them.
What I don't know here is anything of substance about the Bears.
Help?
AG proclaimed the Steez season over in the in-game thread, which is one way you know we're in Week 1. But losing Pouncy and Foote for the season with injuries can't help.
There are enough Steeler fans here to get in on this. What did you see in this game? Was this just Pitt declaring it's time for a rebuilding year, was Tenny legitimately the better team? What did you see from Tenny that can help 'cap this team going forward?
I think what Seattle did today is really going to get lost today. Forget the score, just realize that they flew across the country for an early game and took care of business. I don't think anybody is going to talk about it, but I think this is a good win. Especially since Carolina was about to score to take the lead when the Hawks' defense made a play.
What was interesting to me about Carolina is that the talent seems to be there. $cam makes a play here, Steve Smith makes one there, Williams makes another. Yet they can't really get on the board. This may be an example of the Seahags' defense really being something to watch this year.
Either that or Carolina's offense may need to drop some Cialis in the hopes of ending up with a four hour erection.
Likewise, I expect people to look past Detroit's win as well. Because they were favored, because Minny seems like a one-man show to the general public (and because AP did nothing to discourage that read today). I just don't see Detroit getting much credit.
So, do they deserve much credit?
What did Minny do today that will work well for them going forward and what type of team can the Vikings beat?
As you can see, there are a lot of questions. This thing needs to be crowdsourced. Not just because I wasn't able to do a ton of research pre-season, but because certain posters are going to pick up on specifics that none of us could pick up on for every single team.
Tell me about Kansas City? Sure, Jax blows, but how did Alex Smith look for the whole game? Was their offense balanced, or pass-heavy?
I did watch St. Louis/Arizona and can tell you Carson Palmer looks like a decent QB when you let him throw to Larry Fitzgerald and don't put pressure on him.
On the other side of that, this hype about how the Rams' really re-tooled their passing game to give Bradford these great weapons is horseshit. Their TE Cook had a really strong game, but other than that you're looking at a team that lost Amendola and Brandon Gibson. They got those on the cheap (cough, from the Eagles) and you have Austin from WVU, that's fair. But unless that guy's going to be great out of the box I'm not sold on the passing game.
And I'm not sold on it in part because I don't know what the hell St. Louis is going to do for a running game. Richardson didn't look like a feature back to me at all.
What I liked so far this season, in no particular order:
Things I didn't like, also in no particular order:
But these lists are no where near complete. They are just some of what I saw. Help make this thread better, pick a team or a game and tell us what you saw, what you liked, and what you think opens up some value going forward.
Now, why I knew Blaine Gabbert was under center, I'll never understand, but that's another story.
Anyway, I can't claim to be as well versed in all things NFL as I've been heading into Week 1s in the past. And yet, there have been times when a ton of research did me no good at all, so we'll see what this season nets.
Being that the NFL now stretches out opening weekend into like seven days, let's start on Thursday.
What my thimble-full of knowledge told me about the Broncos was their offense had every opportunity to pick up where it left off and that thanks to steroids or coke or whatever, I may only be to name one starter on their defense.
But Baltimore lost quite a bit, the Super Bowl hangover and revenge for that horrible beat explained the line.
What I took from that game, and especially within the context of the Sunday games as well, is that I think it's hard to make the argument for true parity in the league.
I do think the NFL provides the opportunity for any franchise to succeed, but it's just like if you put 30 companies in the same building, some are just going to be run better than others. And because it's such a QB driven league, I feel like it's easier than ever to put the teams in to tiers.
The NFL wants points, they want to end games with Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Tom Brady, etc. doing interviews.
This is why I think it might be easy to over-react to Week 1 (as everyone always does) and easy to lose some things based on matchups.
They wanted Brees vs. Ryan, Romo vs. Manning, Flacco vs. Manning, Rogers vs. Kap ...
And when you have good teams & QBs up against like competition in Week One, I think it can be hard to pull a ton out of those games.
In Denver, great QB beats really good QB. But mostly because he throws for 7 TDs and Baltimore's defense—at least up against a guy who put points all over them last year too.
So, is Denver's offense good? Yes. Did Baltimore lose pieces? Yes. But this matchup was one that produced a ton of points last year too, and really the Broncos handled Baltimore in every game.
Which isn't to say this was an easy bet. It's instead to say, how much do you really take from that game other than the Broncos' offense is starting the season on the same page and Baltimore still needs to work out some kinks?
Does that mean Balty sucks? No. They still have Ray Rice, they still have the ability to stretch the field. But yes, they miss Pitta and Boldin. What I'm more interested in with them, though, is what their defense looks like in Week 2. I think their offense, especially against marginal defenses, will be fine.
The Donks on the other hand may be tough to get any value on. Peyton makes them a really public team.
From a matchup standpoint, I think you saw something similar in New Orleans.
Now, I didn't watch the whole of this game, so I'll be interested to hear from those who did, but I think it's a similar situation. Two good QBs, defenses that gave up points—but they did so to good QBs.
My questions from this one since I didn't see enough of it:
- How did Atlanta's look on the whole, balanced? It should be, no?
- Brees had 357, was it legit, how did Atlanta's secondary look?
Really for me that's about all I need because I trust Brees to get some points week in and week out, and I trust Atlanta to score as well—especially at home which is where I'm going to look to play them anyway. But where Jackson had 70+ yards, 50 of them came on one play and he didn't look particularly fast, at least to me.
Same scenario in San Fran. Aaron Rogers vs. a system that makes Kap extremely formidable. Which is to say that you can't put Rogers and Kap on the same level, but you can put their offenses and what their offensive production should be on the same tier.
This, to me, is one of those games you just don't bet seriously. For fun, or props or the total, sure, but the offenses are good enough that it's kind of a coin flip. The wrong turnover flips that result.
Actually a large part of the reason I didn't watch a ton of this game was because early on you could see both offenses are there and ready to go. I just hope there's value to be had with them.
All right, enough of that larger point ridiculousness, let's talk about the team you all really care about.
No, not the Birds, they don't play until tomorrow night—in primetime, where they should be.
Let's talk about the Cleveland Football Browns.
Good God this team sucks.
Fine, it's a bit of an overreaction, but not much.
There were a couple of teams I saw touted as under the radar teams that may be much better than people think this year—and the Browns were one of them. Someone on ESPN had them as their survivor play today.
Do these idiots even look at the roster of these teams?
This Browns' secondary is awful (sorry, Joe Haden, but you're the extent of the talent back there). The Browns DL played really well against the run, but who cares in a passing league where you're just going to get torched for 12 yards a pass? Ryan Tannehill cut up the Browns today. Please tell me how it gets better for that defense.
I can't see it.
What I can see is teams giving the Browns their O-face as they put one on Cleveland's eyebrow.
I can also see Trent Richardson being a man. And him hating life all season as the Browns go 5-11 this year.
And since we've talked about good teams that look ready to roll (GB, SF, Denver, etc.), let's talk about how we can already start to fill out the bottom of this league.
Hello, Jacksonville.
Another one of the very few things I heard about before this season is that the Jags are going to run with one of the youngest secondaries in the league. Really? With an offense run by Blaine Gabbert? This team has trainwreck written all over it.
It also may have Los Angeles written all over it, because the NFL doesn't care about you, Jacksonville. They never have.
Oakland and the Jets were also mentioned as awful, but Oakland, to their credit, traveled east well in the AM and held their own against a markedly better team.
And the Jets won.
Now, the Jets have to come back and play in one of those miserable Thursday night games this week, so you know, buttfumble pending. But they are 1-0.
Sadly, it's tough to see a lot of value coming on NE this week. One, they're a hugely public team. Two, the perception is the Jets are going to suck.
Also, in watching parts of that game a couple of things really jumped out. First, the fumbles. That's not going to happen with the Pats every week. Second, when they needed to get it down, they still got it done. Now, Danny Amendola may not catch six consecutive balls thrown his way in clutch time or whatever it was, but the point is, NE still has the schemes and the talent to get guys open and Brady can still put the ball where it needs to be.
That won't win every game, but it should consistently put points on the board. Were this Thursday night game on Sunday, you'd have to figure NE for 24+ this week. And yet, it's a Thursday nighter and those tend to start slow because they're a flawed idea.
I didn't watch Bears/Cincy until the end. And it was nice to see Cincy's lack of discipline never changes. And that AJ Green is just going to eat the Browns secondary alive. He's just going to kill them.
What I don't know here is anything of substance about the Bears.
Help?
AG proclaimed the Steez season over in the in-game thread, which is one way you know we're in Week 1. But losing Pouncy and Foote for the season with injuries can't help.
There are enough Steeler fans here to get in on this. What did you see in this game? Was this just Pitt declaring it's time for a rebuilding year, was Tenny legitimately the better team? What did you see from Tenny that can help 'cap this team going forward?
I think what Seattle did today is really going to get lost today. Forget the score, just realize that they flew across the country for an early game and took care of business. I don't think anybody is going to talk about it, but I think this is a good win. Especially since Carolina was about to score to take the lead when the Hawks' defense made a play.
What was interesting to me about Carolina is that the talent seems to be there. $cam makes a play here, Steve Smith makes one there, Williams makes another. Yet they can't really get on the board. This may be an example of the Seahags' defense really being something to watch this year.
Either that or Carolina's offense may need to drop some Cialis in the hopes of ending up with a four hour erection.
Likewise, I expect people to look past Detroit's win as well. Because they were favored, because Minny seems like a one-man show to the general public (and because AP did nothing to discourage that read today). I just don't see Detroit getting much credit.
So, do they deserve much credit?
What did Minny do today that will work well for them going forward and what type of team can the Vikings beat?
As you can see, there are a lot of questions. This thing needs to be crowdsourced. Not just because I wasn't able to do a ton of research pre-season, but because certain posters are going to pick up on specifics that none of us could pick up on for every single team.
Tell me about Kansas City? Sure, Jax blows, but how did Alex Smith look for the whole game? Was their offense balanced, or pass-heavy?
I did watch St. Louis/Arizona and can tell you Carson Palmer looks like a decent QB when you let him throw to Larry Fitzgerald and don't put pressure on him.
On the other side of that, this hype about how the Rams' really re-tooled their passing game to give Bradford these great weapons is horseshit. Their TE Cook had a really strong game, but other than that you're looking at a team that lost Amendola and Brandon Gibson. They got those on the cheap (cough, from the Eagles) and you have Austin from WVU, that's fair. But unless that guy's going to be great out of the box I'm not sold on the passing game.
And I'm not sold on it in part because I don't know what the hell St. Louis is going to do for a running game. Richardson didn't look like a feature back to me at all.
What I liked so far this season, in no particular order:
- Peyton to Welker to Thomas etc. to the endzone
- Carson Palmer to Larry Fiz making the Cardinals look like they might score more than 10 a game for the first time in two years
- SF being ready to roll
- GB being ready to get it as well
- Rams TE Jared Cook
- Browns TE Jordan Cameron & RB Trent Richardson
- Andrew Luck looking ready to go & Ahmad (sp?) Bradshaw looking like he still has something in the tank
- Reggie Bush looking like he can help balance the Lions' offense
- The Bears taking the ball away all day
- Fish WR Brian Hartline
Things I didn't like, also in no particular order:
- Blaine Gabbert
- The Rams' passing game
- The Browns' secondary
- The Steez being flat in a home opener and losing players to injury
- Miami's new dolphin that looks like an airplane which wouldn't be so bad were they not rivals with the Jets
- The Bengals annual lack of discipline
- Every Oakland Raider not named Terrelle Pryor
But these lists are no where near complete. They are just some of what I saw. Help make this thread better, pick a team or a game and tell us what you saw, what you liked, and what you think opens up some value going forward.
Jay Glazer 
