Super Bowl thread

[Valuist]

I'm hoping the line moves to Denver -3 to take Seattle. I've never seen a pointspread of 2.5 have a moneyline. I know the public will be on Denver. Total apparently opened around 49 and then immediately went to 48 and 47 1/2 in some shops. The possibility of high winds and bad weather could bring it down even further. Normally there wouldn't be much chance of the total moving up, but public sentiment could.

Key matchup: Sherman on Demarius Thomas. Thomas and Decker have had mismatches all season but will not get a mismatch in the SB. Denver has the best offense in the NFL but they haven't seen a defense anywhere as good as Seattle.

[TheEdge07]

I'm hoping the line moves to Denver -3 to take Seattle. I've never seen a pointspread of 2.5 have a moneyline. I know the public will be on Denver. Total apparently opened around 49 and then immediately went to 48 and 47 1/2 in some shops. The possibility of high winds and bad weather could bring it down even further. Normally there wouldn't be much chance of the total moving up, but public sentiment could.

Key matchup: Sherman on Demarius Thomas. Thomas and Decker have had mismatches all season but will not get a mismatch in the SB. Denver has the best offense in the NFL but they haven't seen a defense anywhere as good as Seattle.

Weather will move the line..

[ManU918]

Weather will move the line..

The line has already moved 4 points in some places... What do you expect it to be?

[horses4courses]

I believe Denver will go as high as 3, but you're unlikely to see 3.5,
as it's "bookmaking russian roulette" to book each side of 3 and 7.

Savvy books will try to stay on 3 if they get more Denver money, which looks likely.
A money line will be tacked onto -3 to allow for demand.

I'd say they would go as high as Denver -3 -140 before they even think about 3.5.
It probably won't come to that, though - but the public is all about Denver.

Even one, or two, sharps I know like Denver - I'm not sure why.
They were getting down at -1 last night and early this morning.
I think they are more about getting the best early number, and taking their position closer to game day.

[ManU918]

I
Even one, or two, sharps I know like Denver - I'm not sure why.


Because they are going to win the game. Dogs are 9-3 in the last 12 games in the Super Bowl including 2 back to back dog outright wins. A favorite is due to cover in the SB. This is Manning's year. I am honestly going to be looking for an adjusted line because I believe Denver wins this game by 10 or more points. I can see this game going just like Super Bowl XL. Pittsburgh was -4 and they won by 11. Obviously that game means nothing but I see a similar outcome.

[horses4courses]

Because they are going to win the game. Dogs are 9-3 in the last 12 games in the Super Bowl including 2 back to back dog outright wins. A favorite is due to cover in the SB. This is Manning's year. I am honestly going to be looking for an adjusted line because I believe Denver wins this game by 10 or more points. I can see this game going just like Super Bowl XL. Pittsburgh was -4 and they won by 11. Obviously that game means nothing but I see a similar outcome.

One of us is wrong, then..... ;)

[ManU918]

One of us is wrong, then..... ;)

Yes sir. You and all of my friends love Seattle. I'm happy to be the sucker this year among my friends siding with the "public". I think Seattle backers are over thinking this game. This was one of my friends text messages to me this morning... "If Denver would have opened up at 4 or higher I would be all over them... The small number is telling me Seattle covers this game".... By noon I had 6 messages from 6 different people with the same message. I understand Seattle had the best defense in the regular season and played in the best division....but on a neutral field I like Denver.

[thaskalos]

One of us is wrong, then..... ;)
And it isn't you... :)

[ManU918]

And it isn't you... :)

That's why they play the game.

[horses4courses]

Because they are going to win the game. Dogs are 9-3 in the last 12 games in the Super Bowl including 2 back to back dog outright wins. A favorite is due to cover in the SB. This is Manning's year. I am honestly going to be looking for an adjusted line because I believe Denver wins this game by 10 or more points. I can see this game going just like Super Bowl XL. Pittsburgh was -4 and they won by 11. Obviously that game means nothing but I see a similar outcome.

Another thing to consider here - many respected linesmakers opened Seattle favorite due to a higher power number. Some believe the only reason Denver quickly shifted to favorite, was in anticipation of a surge in public money.

It's not necessarily true that the Broncos are favorite because they are rated higher as a team.
There's always that public perception like "Peyton's on a mission this year" that can drive the line higher.
Who knows? They may be right.........

[ManU918]

Another thing to consider here - many respected linesmakers opened Seattle favorite due to a higher power number. Some believe the only reason Denver quickly shifted to favorite, was in anticipation of a surge in public money.

It's not necessarily true that the Broncos are favorite because they are rated higher as a team.
There's always that public perception like "Peyton's on a mission this year" that can drive the line higher.
Who knows? They may be right.........

Public money? Lets be honest... Who actually bets the game 13 days prior to kickoff? Most of the public doesn't, they wait until game day. The sharps are the ones looking for the best number and the ones who liked Denver jumped on it. If your a Seattle backer, sharp or public, why would you bet them yesterday or today? That would be dumb.

[thaskalos]

Another thing to consider here - many respected linesmakers opened Seattle favorite due to a higher power number. Some believe the only reason Denver quickly shifted to favorite, was in anticipation of a surge in public money.

It's not necessarily true that the Broncos are favorite because they are rated higher as a team.
There's always that public perception like "Peyton's on a mission this year" that can drive the line higher.
Who knows? They may be right.........
I think the linemakers who opened with Seattle as the favorite did so because they wanted to take a position on the game. Denver has been the glamour team all year...and they are also the sentimental choice. What respected linemaker could possibly think that Seattle would end up as the favorite in this game?

The old adage that the linemakers set the line with the sole intention of splitting the action is not necessarily true...IMO. There is plenty of position-taking going on...and I think this was the case here.

[horses4courses]

Public money? Lets be honest... Who actually bets the game 13 days prior to kickoff? Most of the public doesn't, they wait until game day. The sharps are the ones looking for the best number and the ones who liked Denver jumped on it. If your a Seattle backer, sharp or public, why would you bet them yesterday or today? That would be dumb.

You're right about that.
The vast majority of the action won't take place until two weekends from now.
Also, Seattle bettors are in no rush to bet.
As you point out, why would they be?

Some sizable bettors operate like futures traders.
They bet early anticipating the direction the line will move in.
Much of the line movement right now is speculative.
They want to get down on the best Denver number.
Denver at PK, or -1, will be ancient history by game day.

[tucker6]

The line has already moved 4 points in some places... What do you expect it to be?
The bookies making the line Seattle -2 was a mistake. The line will never leave Denver going forward. Does anyone have a link to the other lines for the SB?? You know, the crazy stuff like who will score the first TD, etc?

[horses4courses]

I think the linemakers who opened with Seattle as the favorite did so because they wanted to take a position on the game. Denver has been the glamour team all year...and they are also the sentimental choice. What respected linemaker could possibly think that Seattle would end up as the favorite in this game?

The old adage that the linemakers set the line with the sole intention of splitting the action is not necessarily true...IMO. There is plenty of position-taking going on...and I think this was the case here.

True.
The exceptions here are the oddsmaking services (like Las Vegas Sports Consultants) who set the lines for a large number of books, even though they don't book any bets themselves. On the majority of games, they set the line according to their ratings. Super Bowl is different, and they know to treat it as such. They have to try to gauge public perception regarding the game.
Regardless of the amount of sharp money that's out there, it will be public opinion that eventually drives the Super Bowl line.

Most of the bigger books in Nevada will not necessarily conform to the generic number put out by LVSC. Smaller books do, though. Some stores will take a stand depending on how much freedom they have from corporate accountants. Since Vegas went Wall Street years back, book directors have
less room to maneuver, and their lives can really suck after coming out a Super Bowl loser.

[horses4courses]

The bookies making the line Seattle -2 was a mistake. The line will never leave Denver going forward. Does anyone have a link to the other lines for the SB?? You know, the crazy stuff like who will score the first TD, etc?

All those props are usually out in Nevada by Wednesday, or Thursday this week.
Offshore books may be quicker these days.

[Valuist]

Because they are going to win the game. Dogs are 9-3 in the last 12 games in the Super Bowl including 2 back to back dog outright wins. A favorite is due to cover in the SB. This is Manning's year. I am honestly going to be looking for an adjusted line because I believe Denver wins this game by 10 or more points. I can see this game going just like Super Bowl XL. Pittsburgh was -4 and they won by 11. Obviously that game means nothing but I see a similar outcome.

What do other Super Bowls have to do with whether a favorite or dog wins this year? Completely mutually exclusive events.

[pandy]

I figured Denver will be 2 1/2 point favorites.

Something that interests me in this game, the Seahawks defensive secondary commits pass interference or holding on almost every play. I wonder how many times the refs are going to call it. I think they only got two holding penalties on Sunday but you could see them grabbing the receiver's jerseys well past the 5 yard limit. The Seahawks lead the NFL in both pass interference (13) penalties and holding (10) penalties this year, but they should actually have a lot more because they hold almost every play.

Against Denver, this will be a key to the game since Denver has excellent receivers and the best passing attack in the NFL. If they held the 49ers, they'll be grabbing on for sure against Denver.

Some of you may recall that years ago after the Patriots beat Peyton Manning and the Colts in a big game, the Colts went to the league and complained that the Patriots were holding their receivers. This led to some of the key changes that the NFL implemented which has helped produce the big passing game we see today.

With a legend like Manning in the game, it will be interesting to see if the refs call more of these penalties against the Seahawks secondary. I'm sure that Manning and his coaches will be pointing this out to the refs before and during the game.

Because of the way Seattle holds, I am rooting for the Broncos to win. I'm sure that Carroll wants them to hold, figuring that if they get called once or twice a game it's worth it in the long run.

A columnist in the Wall St. Journal actually wrote about this. I wasn't aware of the article until I did a Google search "Seahawks holding." I just was curious because every time I watch them play, you can clearly see that they are cheating.

[horses4courses]

The bookies making the line Seattle -2 was a mistake. The line will never leave Denver going forward. Does anyone have a link to the other lines for the SB?? You know, the crazy stuff like who will score the first TD, etc?

Speaking of crazy props,
I want to see somebody post up an over/under line on the number of times Peyton Manning yells "Omaha" .

I'm guessing the number is somewhere around 30.
A strictly partisan prop - Denver bettors take the over, Seattle under.

Bet it up!!!

[badcompany]

Generally, the good defense beats the good offense.

IMO, the AFC was weak conference this year. Denver is gonna get a wake up call.

[burnsy]

There's always that public perception like "Peyton's on a mission this year" that can drive the line higher.
Who knows? They may be right.........

Of course they may be right but its not a good way to bet games. That was the same "logic" I heard with people betting New England last week.....oh, Belichik and Brady are "dogs". What an opportunity.......really? The public always has these perception themes and they are the worst reasons to make a bet....right or wrong. Its also why 80 to 90 % of the public can't win betting football.

I like to look at "reality" or try to figure out which team is stronger...I could give a crap about individuals....the "team" is what really matters because in football that's how games are won or lost.

Seattle played a harder schedule and beat the second best team when they won Sunday. Physically, they will challenge the Broncos like no other team has all season. Their running game is way better than what the Broncos are used to. The defense will make plays, with possible turnovers and possibly Peyton hitting the deck. Once they start getting past the offensive line (if it happens) it could get ugly, he can't run like Kapper did and in the end that blew up in San Frans face anyway with a huge 4th quarter fumble. Denver can win if the game gets out of hand, the way the SB sometimes gets played but if I can get Seattle as an underdog...you are out of your friggin mind to bet Denver. I don't care what the public says, the "sharps" or any other garbage...i'm quite capable of handicapping NFL football myself. The book calls me a sharp, how many guys do you think he says that to? He sees me so many times late in the season that he calls it a conspiracy...no lie..we have been friends for about 10 years... Seattle getting any points at all is a dream scenario for me win or lose. I think they win outright with a chance of it getting bad for Denver if they screw up with turnovers. Of course I could be wrong, its gambling. But the "sound" money will be on Seattle if its a straight pick or them getting anything. THERES NOT ONE REASON THE BRONCOS CAN BE THE JUSTIFIED FAVE IN THIS GAME. Seattle is light years better than New England or San Diego on defense and it will show if they play their "A" game.

[NJ Stinks]

Of course they may be right but its not a good way to bet games. That was the same "logic" I heard with people betting New England last week.....oh, Belichik and Brady are "dogs". What an opportunity.......really? The public always has these perception themes and they are the worst reasons to make a bet....right or wrong. Its also why 80 to 90 % of the public can't win betting football.

I like to look at "reality" or try to figure out which team is stronger...I could give a crap about individuals....the "team" is what really matters because in football that's how games are won or lost.

Seattle played a harder schedule and beat the second best team when they won Sunday. Physically, they will challenge the Broncos like no other team has all season. Their running game is way better than what the Broncos are used to. The defense will make plays, with possible turnovers and possibly Peyton hitting the deck. Once they start getting past the offensive line (if it happens) it could get ugly, he can't run like Kapper did and in the end that blew up in San Frans face anyway with a huge 4th quarter fumble. Denver can win if the game gets out of hand, the way the SB sometimes gets played but if I can get Seattle as an underdog...you are out of your friggin mind to bet Denver. I don't care what the public says, the "sharps" or any other garbage...i'm quite capable of handicapping NFL football myself. The book calls me a sharp, how many guys do you think he says that to? He sees me so many times late in the season that he calls it a conspiracy...no lie..we have been friends for about 10 years... Seattle getting any points at all is a dream scenario for me win or lose. I think they win outright with a chance of it getting bad for Denver if they screw up with turnovers. Of course I could be wrong, its gambling. But the "sound" money will be on Seattle if its a straight pick or them getting anything. THERES NOT ONE REASON THE BRONCOS CAN BE THE JUSTIFIED FAVE IN THIS GAME. Seattle is light years better than New England or San Diego on defense and it will show if they play their "A" game.


There is at least one good reason. Peyton is a much better passer than Wilson. Another less obvious reason IMO is the head coach. I'd rather have Fox coaching my team on gameday. And I will add I'm not sold on Seattle's running game being all that effective against the Broncos' defense.

Still, I agree with you about Seattle's D. And Seattle playing a much tougher schedule. These two factors are huge. Some might think I'm nuts with this analogy but....If this was a horserace, I'd say Denver is stepping up in class. Do horses stepping up in class win more than horses stepping down in class?

Anyway, my line is Seattle -2.5....I'd say Seattle by 3 but what self-respecting bookie wants to see a push on Super Bowl Sunday? ;)

[rastajenk]

I tried to handicap the weather this year during the Weekly Whizz contest and did terribly. That weekend in Dec with all the snow games was one of the highest scoring days in NFL history, against most intuitions. Manning's record in bad weather will be scrutinized to death, but my advice would be to lay off the weather and look for other intangibles to cloud your thinking.

:cool:

[ManU918]

What do other Super Bowls have to do with whether a favorite or dog wins this year? Completely mutually exclusive events.

I was making the point that due to recent history the "sharps" should have nothing to complain about once Denver and the public (assuming a large percentage of the action stays on Denver at kickoff) win.

[ManU918]

I don't care what the public says, the "sharps" or any other garbage...i'm quite capable of handicapping NFL football myself. The book calls me a sharp, how many guys do you think he says that to? He sees me so many times late in the season that he calls it a conspiracy...no lie..we have been friends for about 10 years... Seattle getting any points at all is a dream scenario for me win or lose. I think they win outright with a chance of it getting bad for Denver if they screw up with turnovers. Of course I could be wrong, its gambling. But the "sound" money will be on Seattle if its a straight pick or them getting anything. THERES NOT ONE REASON THE BRONCOS CAN BE THE JUSTIFIED FAVE IN THIS GAME. Seattle is light years better than New England or San Diego on defense and it will show if they play their "A" game.

This post made me laugh out loud. Who are you trying to impress with your "my book calls me a sharp, how many guys do you think he says that to line"? If your that good then I assume you play in the LVH Contest....I would love to know where you placed in that. We finished 1-2 in whizs' contest during the regular season and are pretty much in the same position going into the Super Bowl for horses contest. So if I'm your biggest competition here and your only beating me by a game....I'm not impressed.

[pandy]

I've picked 9 of the last 12 Super Bowls against the spread on my website and I've shown a profit on my NFL spot picks since I started giving them out (free) three years ago. I went 6-3 in the playoffs this year and my win percentage in the post season during the last 3 seasons is 68%. These picks are documented on my website.

I do tend to go with the better defense many times but I think the key to being successful as a NFL bettor goes much deeper than merely playing the better defensive team. And there are so many subtleties. For instance, the knee jerk view is that the Seahawks have the great defense so they will win.

But the key to this game may be the Bronco's defense. They are much better than the stats show. I bet the Broncos against the Patriots mainly because of the Broncos defense, not the offense. The stats are misleading because as we saw on Sunday, when the Broncos get a big lead, which they often do, their defense relaxes or goes into protect mode, dropping 8 in coverage, which allows the opposition to gain a lot of yards.

But the Broncos dominated that game Sunday. The Patriots were held to 3 points for three quarters and then when the Broncos went to the Prevent Defense the Patriots scored 13 points but it ate up the clock. I hate the Prevent D, but I get the idea that they don't want the other team to score fast so they feel it protects their lead.

Another factor, any defense that plays on a team that puts up monster points like the Broncos is going to have lapses because they often have a big lead, they don't have to play that tough. But when they have to, the Broncos defense can dig in. They are underrated. The Broncos were 7th in the NFL against the run, better than the Seahawks. The Seahawks are a running team.

The Seahawks offense can be anemic at times and no matter how good your defense is, you have to score to win. Another factor, the Seahawks played most of their games against teams that don't have good offenses, with the exception of the Colts and Saints. The Colts beat them 34-28.

Look at their schedule, they played Arizona twice, St Louis twice, 49ers twice, Tenn. Titans, Jacksonville, Vikings, Tampa Bay, and then they played teams that had terrible years this year, Giants, Falcons, and Houston. None of these teams have an offense evenly remotely close to the Broncos. They did beat the 49ers twice, and that's a big key, because the Niners are a very good team. But the Broncos schedule was far from soft. They beat five playoff teams during the regular season.

[pandy]

Of course another factor, the Seahawks were 8-0 at home, 5-3 on the road.

[Valuist]

Of course another factor, the Seahawks were 8-0 at home, 5-3 on the road.

Seattle was actually 7-1 at home and 6-2 on the road. Broncos were also 7-1 at home and 6-2 on the road. Both teams lost at Indy; Hawks lost at SF and at home against Arizona. Denver also lost at NE, and at home to SD.

[Robert Fischer]

Denver should be able to points up at a pace that Seattle can't handle.

[pandy]

Seattle was actually 7-1 at home and 6-2 on the road. Broncos were also 7-1 at home and 6-2 on the road. Both teams lost at Indy; Hawks lost at SF and at home against Arizona. Denver also lost at NE, and at home to SD.

Top Offensive Teams

I missed that home loss to Arizona. An interesting factor is that Seahawks only faced one powerhouse offensive team, the Saints (ranked 5th in offense). They didn't have to face Broncos (1), Eagles (2), Packers (3), Cowboys (16th but 3rd in total points), Patriots (7th but 2nd in total points), Chargers (4), Detroit (7), Bears (8 but tied with Patriots for 2nd in total points scored).

So they literally only faced one highly rated offense the entire year, one game against the Saints. That at least partly explains why their defense has such good statistics.

[pandy]

Denver should be able to points up at a pace that Seattle can't handle.


Denver's game plan is going to be interesting. The Seahawks have occasionally had trouble stopping the run this year. Against the Niners, they decided to stop the run and forced Kap to pass, so they had their linebackers on the line of scrimmage on first and second downs.

They won't be able to do that against the Broncos. First of all, Kaepernick rarely checks off, he can't read defenses, and he also struggles to find receivers if his first option is covered. Manning, of course, is a master at both. The Broncos should be able to do pretty well on the ground.

[Valuist]

[QUOTE=pandy]Top Offensive Teams

I missed that home loss to Arizona. An interesting factor is that Seahawks only faced one powerhouse offensive team, the Saints (ranked 5th in offense). They didn't have to face Broncos (1), Eagles (2), Packers (3), Cowboys (16th but 3rd in total points), Patriots (7th but 2nd in total points), Chargers (4), Detroit (7), Bears (8 but tied with Patriots for 2nd in total points scored).

So they literally only faced one highly rated offense the entire year, one game against the Saints. That at least partly explains why their defense has such good statistics.[/QUOTE

I'll turn that on you. Seattle's offensive numbers were kept down because they faced all the top defenses. Here's the top 10 defenses, by yardage:

1. Seattle
2. Carolina (beat them)
3. Cincinnati
4. New Orleans (beat them twice)
5. San Fran (beat them twice)
6. Arizona (beat them)
7. Houston (beat them)
8. NY Giants (beat them)
9. Cleveland
10. Buffalo

Denver only faced (and beat) the Giants and Houston, certainly not two of the better teams on that list.

Here's the bottom 10:
32. Dallas- Denver beat them
31. Minnesota
30. Chicago
29. Philly- beat them
28. Atl & Jax Denver beat Jax
26. New England- beat them
25. Green Bay
24. KC beat them twice
23, San Diego beat them twice

[Robert Fischer]

Seattle has a very good defense.

Maybe the best in the NFL, possibly the best in several years.

Can that top defense stop a passing attack like Manning's?

I don't know. I would guess that the Seahawks would be better against teams that depend on 1-on-1 mismatches vs. other teams, or teams like the 49ers who lack the accuracy and timing and vision that the Broncos' passing attack has.

It would seem that the Seattle defense would probably contain the Broncos' passing attack somewhat.

[Robert Fischer]

Denver's game plan is going to be interesting. The Seahawks have occasionally had trouble stopping the run this year. Against the Niners, they decided to stop the run and forced Kap to pass, so they had their linebackers on the line of scrimmage on first and second downs.

They won't be able to do that against the Broncos. First of all, Kaepernick rarely checks off, he can't read defenses, and he also struggles to find receivers if his first option is covered. Manning, of course, is a master at both. The Broncos should be able to do pretty well on the ground.

Broncos are definitely a much more dynamic offense than the 49ers.

The NFL rules at least seem to favor teams like the Broncos. The last couple years in the playoffs we've had Ravens vs 49ers, and this year Seattle, and San Francisco have done well, with teams like Green Bay and New Orleans tailing off a bit, so it hasn't been as evident.

[Valuist]

Seattle has a very good defense.

Maybe the best in the NFL, possibly the best in several years.

Can that top defense stop a passing attack like Manning's?

I don't know. I would guess that the Seahawks would be better against teams that depend on 1-on-1 mismatches vs. other teams, or teams like the 49ers who lack the accuracy and timing and vision that the Broncos' passing attack has.

It would seem that the Seattle defense would probably contain the Broncos' passing attack somewhat.

The Broncos certainly depend on 1 on 1 mismatches. Demarius Thomas and Decker are two big, physical receivers. They haven't seen anything close to Richard Sherman or a safety like Kam Chancellor.

[Valuist]

I think the road to the Super Bowl makes it clear; the AFC was very weak this year. Denver beat a New England team that was decimated by injuries. The Pats two top defenders (Wilfork and Mayo) didn't even suit up, and their top DB, Talib, was taken out of the game by Welker. On the offensive side, NE was decimated at WR and TE. No Gronk, Welker, Hernandez or Lloyd. Just Edelman and Amendola; nice slot receivers but a cheap imitation of Welker. And the Pats were able to beat an injury decimated Colt team. The other playoff win was over San Diego, a nice but very unspectacular team who's a divisional. Playing at home with revenge and beating the Chargers was hardly a surprise.

Seattle had to beat New Orleans and San Francisco to get there. IMO, both those teams are superior to any AFC team except for Denver. And Seattle beat those teams twice.

[Robert Fischer]

The Broncos certainly depend on 1 on 1 mismatches. Demarius Thomas and Decker are two big, physical receivers. They haven't seen anything close to Richard Sherman or a safety like Kam Chancellor.

That is a good point.
I would think a guy like Demarius Thomas will get shut down if Seattle focuses on him.

[pandy]

I think the road to the Super Bowl makes it clear; the AFC was very weak this year. Denver beat a New England team that was decimated by injuries. The Pats two top defenders (Wilfork and Mayo) didn't even suit up, and their top DB, Talib, was taken out of the game by Welker. On the offensive side, NE was decimated at WR and TE. No Gronk, Welker, Hernandez or Lloyd. Just Edelman and Amendola; nice slot receivers but a cheap imitation of Welker. And the Pats were able to beat an injury decimated Colt team. The other playoff win was over San Diego, a nice but very unspectacular team who's a divisional. Playing at home with revenge and beating the Chargers was hardly a surprise.

Seattle had to beat New Orleans and San Francisco to get there. IMO, both those teams are superior to any AFC team except for Denver. And Seattle beat those teams twice.

I agree with you on this, Saints and Niners are tougher rivals than Chargers/Pats.

And although the Seahawks faced weak offensive teams, with the exception of Saints, on the flip side, the Broncos only actually faced one top defense, the Chiefs. The Chiefs only allowed 305 points, 4th best in the NFL (and third was 304 pts). But the Broncos averaged 31 points against the Chiefs in their two meetings this year.

I still think I'm going to lay as much as 2 1/2 points on Broncos. My main reasoning at this point is that Broncos defense matches up well against Seahawks offense, so I don't see the Seahawks scoring a lot of points, especially playing in New Jersey. And although the Seahawks should give the Bronco offense it's sternest task, I think Denver has enough weapons to get the points they need. The thing about the Broncos offense, it is not just the best offense in the NFL. The Broncos scored more points than any team in NFL history. Granted, the rules make it easier to score, but the bottom line is, this is not just a good offense, this is a great offense.

[Valuist]

I'm curious to see the player props. I expect Sherman to be on Demarius. I would go under on Thomas' receiving yardage. Maybe go over on Welker because I think Seattle is going to take away the deep pass and make Manning dink and dunk and Welker and the tight ends would be the beneficiaries.

[Marshall Bennett]

My Super Bowl prediction : Denver 41 Seattle 24 :cool:

[thaskalos]

Seattle...27-24.

[Valuist]

I agree with you on this, Saints and Niners are tougher rivals than Chargers/Pats.

And although the Seahawks faced weak offensive teams, with the exception of Saints, on the flip side, the Broncos only actually faced one top defense, the Chiefs. The Chiefs only allowed 305 points, 4th best in the NFL (and third was 304 pts). But the Broncos averaged 31 points against the Chiefs in their two meetings this year.

I still think I'm going to lay as much as 2 1/2 points on Broncos. My main reasoning at this point is that Broncos defense matches up well against Seahawks offense, so I don't see the Seahawks scoring a lot of points, especially playing in New Jersey. And although the Seahawks should give the Bronco offense it's sternest task, I think Denver has enough weapons to get the points they need. The thing about the Broncos offense, it is not just the best offense in the NFL. The Broncos scored more points than any team in NFL history. Granted, the rules make it easier to score, but the bottom line is, this is not just a good offense, this is a great offense.

By yardage, the Chiefs were not only not a top 10 defense, they were actually in the bottom 10.

If you are going to bet Denver, better bet before it hits 3. It will never cross over to 3 1/2, but I'm waiting for 3 to take Seattle.

[horses4courses]

By yardage, the Chiefs were not only not a top 10 defense, they were actually in the bottom 10.

If you are going to bet Denver, better bet before it hits 3. It will never cross over to 3 1/2, but I'm waiting for 3 to take Seattle.

I agree.

You may now have to wait until late next week to see 3, though.
Seems that the number is settling around 2, for now.
Much of Nevada is at 2.5, but big offshore outfits, like The Greek, were at 1.5 as of last night.

The public opinion behind Denver should cause the number to rise.
Numbers between 1 and 2.5 are of little consequence to bookmakers.
If and when it hits 3, it won't be going higher.

[pandy]

Another intriguing aspect of this game, which I think you have to consider in an analysis of the two teams, the Broncos No Huddle style of offense. One of the reasons why they pile up so many yards is because defenses simply run out of steam because you can't make substitutions. This could be an advantage, particularly in the second half.

[Track Collector]

Denver 27
Seattle 16


.

[RunForTheRoses]

Can't blame the weatherguy trying to get some publicity:

http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2014/01/super_bowl_2014_weather_cbs_lonnie_quinn_predicts_ big_storm_with_mike_francesa.html#incart_m-rpt-2

[burnsy]

This post made me laugh out loud. Who are you trying to impress with your "my book calls me a sharp, how many guys do you think he says that to line"? If your that good then I assume you play in the LVH Contest....I would love to know where you placed in that. We finished 1-2 in whizs' contest during the regular season and are pretty much in the same position going into the Super Bowl for horses contest. So if I'm your biggest competition here and your only beating me by a game....I'm not impressed.

I want to play in that contest some day. You don't think I realized you were competition?...I figured that out a while ago. Long before you said this. Was even going to say something too. I know you can pick these games, I've read your posts and many times we agree. But contests and betting are two different things....I bet 3 games a week...max. You think its an accident that the same people are near the top? Because I don't. You are right...I was bragging but I was not lying. People take me way too seriously on here...I like to talk shit...but like Sherman I can usually back it when it comes to gambling. I don't say anything to impress people but I am an obnoxious SOB. I could give a crap what people think. You think I could not hold my own (against anyone), I have pretty much spelled out how some of these games would turn out...to a tee...if you read my posts. At least you laughed at me and that was my point...I act like a jerk sometimes, but i'm a pretty smart jerk...and some people hate that, they don't laugh,,,:lol: You are right, there are times I should keep my mouth shut. In person i'm actually quiet. I would rather people be impressed by my info...which is usually pretty accurate. I'll tone it down, sorry.

[thaskalos]

I want to play in that contest some day. You don't think I realized you were competition?...I figured that out a while ago. Long before you said this. Was even going to say something too. I know you can pick these games, I've read your posts and many times we agree. But contests and betting are two different things....I bet 3 games a week...max. You think its an accident that the same people are near the top? Because I don't. You are right...I was bragging but I was not lying. People take me way too seriously on here...I like to talk shit...but like Sherman I can usually back it when it comes to gambling. I don't say anything to impress people but I am an obnoxious SOB. I could give a crap what people think. You think I could not hold my own (against anyone), I have pretty much spelled out how some of these games would turn out...to a tee...if you read my posts. At least you laughed at me and that was my point...I act like a jerk sometimes, but i'm a pretty smart jerk...and some people hate that, they don't laugh,,,:lol: You are right, there are times I should keep my mouth shut. In person i'm actually quiet. I would rather people be impressed by my info...which is usually pretty accurate. I'll tone it down, sorry.

Don't tone it down, my friend...speak your mind without any inhibitions.

It ain't bragging if it's true...

[burnsy]

Don't tone it down, my friend...speak your mind without any inhibitions.

It ain't bragging if it's true...

Thanks, but I know ask for it sometimes. I've always been a "loose cannon" guy. Believe me in my younger days I was worse. I always speak my mind. The way I do it is sometimes questionable....I know i'll never be a diplomat..put it that way.

[NJ Stinks]

I'll tone it down, sorry.


Don't worry about it, Sherman. :p


Besides, I like reading how and why the Seahawks are going to kick ass. :cool:

[hugh]

Just going to weigh in real quick...
75 percent of bettors are taking denver minus a point.
SEATTLE IS A HUGE PLAY.
that's all.

[precocity]

going by the NFL script.
denver 34
seattle 24 just saying.

[burnsy]

Don't worry about it, Sherman. :p


Besides, I like reading how and why the Seahawks are going to kick ass. :cool:

Thanks, I agree, and that was the most important part of the post...the rest was my hot air and the game analyses statements I make are what I want to be impressive. Because that means I was right and I win. That's actually the name of this game,,,being right more times than you are wrong. Of course, I throw in my own embellishment too. I do call them like I see them and I've been watching pro football for at least 42 years. I believe Seattle will run better than Denver does once the game gets heated. That's how they do it. Sometimes early in the game Seattle gets stopped, but they are persistent. Once the other team gets tired, the beast gashes long runs. San Fran is one of the best defenses around. They held him early, late in the game they had no answer. Denver will have to try to assume the lead in this game to win. Which means opening up early. Keeping it close like they did the last two games would probably get them beat. If this becomes a "trenches" game and Denver can't get a "daylight" lead.....not in every scenario, but most times Seattle will just beat you down in the 4th. San Fran is clearly another great team in this league. The two times they lost to Seattle, the game started out close but Seattle just keeps coming at you. Those bastards are in peak condition on both sides of the ball. You got to hit them early because they last a long time.

[pandy]

Thanks for the analysis, I like reading other opinions such as Valuist. I think that Denver's no huddle offense will take some of that energy out of the Seahawks defense (can't substitute) in the 2nd half and Denver will have more rushing yards than Seattle.

[burnsy]

I left out one thing...Everyone is talking about Peyton...he's great no doubt. Russell Wilson is no slouch just because of his stats. That's how it works, they don't depend on him passing. They depend on him to turn 3 or 4 broken plays into gems and he has the arm strength to burn the other team or find the guy wide open underneath for a huge play..that's all they need.

[pandy]

I'm not a fan of Wilson. Yes, he is a good athlete, but at this point in his career he is very inconsistent and even at his best he is just an average passer. Their defense won several games for them where he was just awful. But he is capable of having a good game.

I noticed that Kaepernick can't read defenses. Wilson doesn't excel in this area either, so he'll be running the plays they send in. Manning will be calling the plays on the fly adjusting to the defense.

An interesting part of this game, and I think it's a classic match up, is going to be Denver's offensive strategy. Manning has always been a QB who throws long and tries to blow the game open right from the start. He attacks the defense.

That could be a risky strategy against the Seahawks pass defense. So I expect the Broncos to play more conservative, with runs and short passes. Of course Manning will air it out once in a while just to keep the linebackers and safties from creeping in too close. And of course he'll go no huddle so they can't substitute.

[burnsy]

He's not Peyton but he's the kind of guy that makes a play when they need it. You are right on though, What Denver does early is up in the air. They always run the "no huddle" but they have been chewing clock in the playoffs. They are not trying to score 6 TD's like during some of the regular season. Last week they held the ball for 6 to 7 minutes....even if it was a FG attempt. Same thing vs. San Diego. New England didn't force a punt after the first quarter. They just could not stop Denver......at all. Seattle will hopefully make stops and force punts. Against a team like Seattle they may come out guns blazing and go for the throat. If that happens early Seattle could be in trouble. The interesting, unknown of this game is how Denver runs their no huddle. Will they snap and go?...or will there be 57 Omaha's. IMO the "ball control" "slow" no huddle may blow up in their face. Late in the game.

[Valuist]

Would they actually change the date of the game? Of course Goodell is so arrogant, even if they changed the date, he wouldn't admit putting the game in a cold weather site was a big mistake:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/super-bowl-2014-nfl-suggests-winter-weather-force-21649846

[PaceAdvantage]

It's only a big mistake for wimps.

Why is cold weather and its associated obstacles OK for the rest of the season, but off limits for the big game?

[Valuist]

It's only a big mistake for wimps.

Why is cold weather and its associated obstacles OK for the rest of the season, but off limits for the big game?

Its part of home field advantage during the regular season. The Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral site. I really don't want to see a championship game decided under conditions like the Lions-Eagles this past season. Weather should not be a factor, but it will be.

[NJ Stinks]

It's only a big mistake for wimps.

Why is cold weather and its associated obstacles OK for the rest of the season, but off limits for the big game?
1. What fan in his right mind would hope and pray that the league owners would subject him or her to a night game in early February in North Jersey when it is totally unnecessary? And then make the fan pay at least $500 for the privilege? Or is New York a tourist's dream this time of year?

2. Why voluntarily subject the championship game to the whims of Mother Nature? Oh sorry - how wimpy of me! Make'em play in piles of man-made snow if we have too! After all, it will look great on TV. :rolleyes:

We already knew the pro game is all about money. We just weren't sure about the extent of the greed.

[Clocker]

Speaking of crazy props,
I want to see somebody post up an over/under line on the number of times Peyton Manning yells "Omaha" .

I'm guessing the number is somewhere around 30.
A strictly partisan prop - Denver bettors take the over, Seattle under.

Bet it up!!!


Last I heard, one of the online books had it at 27 1/2.

[Marshall Bennett]

It's only a big mistake for wimps.

Why is cold weather and its associated obstacles OK for the rest of the season, but off limits for the big game?
Absolutely. Before the Super Bowl, championships were decided in lousy weather routinely. The die-hard wealthy will battle the elements to be at a Super Bowl. The stands were packed at the infamous Ice Bowl when the temperature was -15. Pay the big bucks in advance and keep your fingers crossed. If there's a blizzard at game-time, either stay home and watch or go sit in the blowing snow with 90,000 other idiots. Makes me much more comfortable knowing I'm watching from home and not one of them.

[thaskalos]

I am praying for galing winds, a below-zero temperature...and a 6-3 final score.

[sammy the sage]

You boys are handicappin' the WRONG angle...I hate to write this...but much like horse racing...outside influences MIGHT determine the outcome...

Find out the REF. crew assigned...penalty calls...esp...on defensive 2ndary...if they're going to allow Hawks to continue their mugging ways...Denver's toast....however if they're gonna throw a few hankies early to set the tone...Seattle will get scorched...

just my 2 cents...1943 copper that is!

[JustRalph]

Never been to that stadium. Does it have sky boxes etc? I'm assuming it does. So the fat cats won't have to worry about weather?

[pandy]

You boys are handicappin' the WRONG angle...I hate to write this...but much like horse racing...outside influences MIGHT determine the outcome...

Find out the REF. crew assigned...penalty calls...esp...on defensive 2ndary...if they're going to allow Hawks to continue their mugging ways...Denver's toast....however if they're gonna throw a few hankies early to set the tone...Seattle will get scorched...

just my 2 cents...1943 copper that is!

I mentioned that on my analysis (handicappingwinners.com/nfl_bets.com). The Seahawks lead the league in both defensive holding penalties and pass interference penalties, plus total penalties and yards. But they get away with a lot. They cheat.

If the refs do their job, the Seahawks will be flagged a few times early in the game and that will make Peyton Manning's job easier. Years ago the Patriots did the same thing and the Colts (Manning) complained to the league which resulted in some of the rule changes on what is not allowed in pass coverage and more pass interference calls.

Another scenario is that the refs don't throw the flags early but later in the game at a critical moment.

[tucker6]

from my recollection, refs throw fewer flags in SB's to allow the teams to play the game and not interfere with the ebb and flow. The NFL really doesn't want a flag fest in the biggest game of the year. They'll call the obvious stuff, but the ticky tack stuff will not.

[burnsy]

from my recollection, refs throw fewer flags in SB's to allow the teams to play the game and not interfere with the ebb and flow. The NFL really doesn't want a flag fest in the biggest game of the year. They'll call the obvious stuff, but the ticky tack stuff will not.

BINGO....they lower it during the playoffs. During the SB there is usually even less. If people are handicapping this game counting on flags. Good luck. How much do you believe in the team you like? ....if you are counting on flags? Go through past SB's. Sometimes they go a full quarter without one. Seattle plays "bully" football its far from cheating. Every great team before the rules changed played this style. Bump and run, tie up at the line, that used to be an art. Even if a few flags are thrown.......are people foolish enough to believe Seattle will change from what got them there? If you are trying to "convince yourself" that this won't be the tightest coverage Denver has faced.......dream on. Look at the replays from last week. Peyton looked great over the middle, outside not so much a couple times. There were several "ducks" that got through....New England did not have them covered properly. I would not be surprised if he floats a pick or two, that will negate the few calls they get, if they do get them.

[kingfin66]

I mentioned that on my analysis (handicappingwinners.com/nfl_bets.com). The Seahawks lead the league in both defensive holding penalties and pass interference penalties, plus total penalties and yards. But they get away with a lot. They cheat.

If the refs do their job, the Seahawks will be flagged a few times early in the game and that will make Peyton Manning's job easier. Years ago the Patriots did the same thing and the Colts (Manning) complained to the league which resulted in some of the rule changes on what is not allowed in pass coverage and more pass interference calls.

Another scenario is that the refs don't throw the flags early but later in the game at a critical moment.

Oh yeah, Seattle cheated their way to the best record in the league. Meanwhile, Denver with the angelic Peyton Manning at the helm, is not guilty of any malfeasance at all. Those blatant picks set by their receivers are "just part of the game" right? A lot of what you hear is reputation and hyperbole. It may be that they defensive backs are actually that good. Besides, I am tired of receivers throwing their hands in the air every time a pass is incomplete. Finally, I think receivers, in general, are just as guilty of pass interference. They get away with getting separation (i.e. pushing off) as DB's do with holding.

If any team has been screwed over by bad officiating in a Super Bowl it was Seattle when they played Pittsburgh in 2006. You may recall that in that game, Matt Hasselbeck was assessed a 15 yard personal foul for an illegal block. The problem was that his illegal block was actually him tackling the player who had intercepted him on that play :eek: That was but one of several.

[pandy]

Seattle has a talented group of pass defenders, no question, but they hold on almost every play. I do agree that the refs usually throw less flags in the Super Bowl, but I also think that Seattle will have some key penalties in this game because they are so obvious when they hold, the grab the receiver's jersey. As for Manning being intercepted, I don't think his arm strength is what it used to be and that could certainly be a factor because the Seahawks lead the league in interceptions. I'll say this, if the Seahawks don't score at least one TD off a turnover, they don't have a chance.

[wiffleball whizz]

I think the Seattle offense is getting zero respect here....don't think they can't explode.......people forget the points the Denver d has let up

[thaskalos]

I say bet the money on Seattle...and sleep like a baby.

Leave the worry for the Denver backers... :cool:

[PaceAdvantage]

1. What fan in his right mind would hope and pray that the league owners would subject him or her to a night game in early February in North Jersey when it is totally unnecessary? And then make the fan pay at least $500 for the privilege? Or is New York a tourist's dream this time of year?

2. Why voluntarily subject the championship game to the whims of Mother Nature? Oh sorry - how wimpy of me! Make'em play in piles of man-made snow if we have too! After all, it will look great on TV. :rolleyes:

We already knew the pro game is all about money. We just weren't sure about the extent of the greed.Come on man...how many does MetLife hold? A proverbial drop in the bucket in terms of total number of NFL fans.

AND, ticket prices are dropping, so the weather is making it more affordable (compared to other SBs) for those fans who are NOT wimps... :lol:

This whole "everything should be fair and easy for everyone" is what is wrong with society as a whole. We shouldn't have any Breeders' Cups anywhere except Southern California where it will probably be nice (minus earthquakes and choking brush fires)...and we shouldn't play the Super Bowl anywhere that isn't covered or guaranteed to be sunny and 60-70 degrees out....I don't agree.

Life isn't fair and easy. Sports shouldn't be either. These guys get paid TONS. They are professional athletes accustomed to playing in the rain and snow, hot and cold. The Super Bowl should not be any different.

[Tom]

I am praying for galing winds, a below-zero temperature...and a 6-3 final score.
Freezing rain, gale force winds, no one can pass, no one can hold on to the ball, and they have to call the game and lose millions in un-aired commercials. May the idiots will thing once next year.

[Valuist]

from my recollection, refs throw fewer flags in SB's to allow the teams to play the game and not interfere with the ebb and flow. The NFL really doesn't want a flag fest in the biggest game of the year. They'll call the obvious stuff, but the ticky tack stuff will not.

Agreed. Nothing looks worse than an endless parade of flags. They will let them play.

[Valuist]

Come on man...how many does MetLife hold? A proverbial drop in the bucket in terms of total number of NFL fans.

AND, ticket prices are dropping, so the weather is making it more affordable (compared to other SBs) for those fans who are NOT wimps... :lol:

This whole "everything should be fair and easy for everyone" is what is wrong with society as a whole. We shouldn't have any Breeders' Cups anywhere except Southern California where it will probably be nice (minus earthquakes and choking brush fires)...and we shouldn't play the Super Bowl anywhere that isn't covered or guaranteed to be sunny and 60-70 degrees out....I don't agree.

Life isn't fair and easy. Sports shouldn't be either. These guys get paid TONS. They are professional athletes accustomed to playing in the rain and snow, hot and cold. The Super Bowl should not be any different.

Because they get paid a lot of money we should hold the game under circumstances which likely will be poor, and possibly ridiculous? This is just a payback for the new stadium. I'm sure the NFL will learn their lesson and return to a Miami-New Orleans-San Diego-Arizona rotation.

[pandy]

I read today that the cheap seats are $2,500. I've been to the stadium 8 times, all Jets wins luckily, and I can say that the seats are all good. It's not like the older stadiums, the seats are closer to the field and the stadium isn't that big.

I don't have a problem with the game being in the Northeast but I don't think they should do it that often and I think they should avoid the real cold places like Minnesota.

But, with all the money spread between Jets, Giants, Met Life, I don't understand why they didn't put a dome on the place. Cheapskates.

[PaceAdvantage]

Because they get paid a lot of money we should hold the game under circumstances which likely will be poor, and possibly ridiculous? This is just a payback for the new stadium. I'm sure the NFL will learn their lesson and return to a Miami-New Orleans-San Diego-Arizona rotation.The current weather report for the super bowl is neither poor nor ridiculous.

Temps in the mid 30s...and if any snow falls, it should not be enough to impact the game to any degree.

Of course, that could all change...but as of now, shouldn't be much of a problem.

Tons more people willingly spend hours outside freezing their asses off just to watch a ball drop in Times Square on New Year's Eve. I doubt those who attend the Super Bowl are going to be wishing they were somewhere else on Sunday.

[Valuist]

The current weather report for the super bowl is neither poor nor ridiculous.

Temps in the mid 30s...and if any snow falls, it should not be enough to impact the game to any degree.

Of course, that could all change...but as of now, shouldn't be much of a problem.

Tons more people willingly spend hours outside freezing their asses off just to watch a ball drop in Times Square on New Year's Eve. I doubt those who attend the Super Bowl are going to be wishing they were somewhere else on Sunday.

Cmon, PA. As a racing fan you should know well enough that weather forecasts 6 days in advance are completely worthless.

BTW, how many people watching in Times Square on New Year's Eve spent into four digits to do that?

[MutuelClerk]

Denver receivers lead the league in yards after catch. Seattle's defense was best at stopping yards after catch. I think this stat will be important in deciding who wins this game. Which is why I lean Seattle. They can tackle. Which seems to be a lost art in the NFL.

[PaceAdvantage]

Cmon, PA. As a racing fan you should know well enough that weather forecasts 6 days in advance are completely worthless.I agree totally...however, I think they are trying harder because it's the Super Bowl and maybe they'll get it right...lol

[Stillriledup]

Interesting thing i noticed about the history of the super bowl and scoring in super bowls that doesnt seem to go hand in hand with the way the game has changed. Now we know that the rules have changed to create more scoring and to permit QBs to have more passing yards and TD passes, but the "increased offense" hasnt borne out in Super Bowls for some reason.

In the 20 Super Bowls from 1984 to 2003, the winning team scored 30 points or more in 15 of the 20 games, and the winning team scored 40 or more 6 out of 20.

In the 10 Super Bowls from 2004 to 2013, the winning team has only scored 30 points in 4 of the 10 games and no winning team has scored more than 34.

Also, in that 20 years span, there were a lot of blowouts.....but, in the last 10 years, there have been basically no blowouts and almost all the games were close right to the end.

This is GREAT for the NFL that the Super Bowls are close, they can sell you more products as you won't be tuning out early.

[tucker6]

Interesting thing i noticed about the history of the super bowl and scoring in super bowls that doesnt seem to go hand in hand with the way the game has changed. Now we know that the rules have changed to create more scoring and to permit QBs to have more passing yards and TD passes, but the "increased offense" hasnt borne out in Super Bowls for some reason.

In the 20 Super Bowls from 1984 to 2003, the winning team scored 30 points or more in 15 of the 20 games, and the winning team scored 40 or more 6 out of 20.

In the 10 Super Bowls from 2004 to 2013, the winning team has only scored 30 points in 4 of the 10 games and no winning team has scored more than 34.

Also, in that 20 years span, there were a lot of blowouts.....but, in the last 10 years, there have been basically no blowouts and almost all the games were close right to the end.

This is GREAT for the NFL that the Super Bowls are close, they can sell you more products as you won't be tuning out early.
I believe that it's due to the fact that the league allows more defensive hitting at the line in SB's than they do in the regular season and which creates lower scoring. Since offenses these days are less used to bump and run than in the old days, they are less able to cope with the tactic for one game. That's my theory.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is GREAT for the NFL that the Super Bowls are close, they can sell you more products as you won't be tuning out early.Ads are sold well before the game ever starts. So not sure how a close game or a blowout affects the NFL's ability to sell... the networks already have their advertising revenue beforehand.

[pandy]

I believe that it's due to the fact that the league allows more defensive hitting at the line in SB's than they do in the regular season and which creates lower scoring. Since offenses these days are less used to bump and run than in the old days, they are less able to cope with the tactic for one game. That's my theory.

I agree, if they don't call the holding and pass interference penalties, it will hold the score down. Why they would do that is beyond me. All they have to do to keep the game honest is call some early penalties.

[cj's dad]

I did some comparison "shopping" regarding the Seahawks and Broncos and their respective schedules; here is what I found:

The Seahawks and the media are touting their Defense as one of the best, so lets look at the offensive stats of their opponents.

The following were their opponents in the past season.

The first # listed is the ranking for points scored, the second is for total yards:

NO- 10/4 - Carolina- 18/26- SF - 11/24- Jax-32/31- Hou-32/11- Colts-14/15- Tenn-19/22 - Ariz-16-12 - StLouis-21/30 - TB - 30/32 - Atl. - 20/14 - Minn - 14/13 - NYG - 28/28

The top opponents offensively were NO-SF & Houston.

The first and second ranked in each category are in red..

Taking a look at Denver.

Ravens - 25/29 - NYG - 29/28 - Oakland - 24/23 - Eagles - 4/2 -
Dallas - 5/16 - Jax - 32/31 - Colts - 14/15 - Skins - 23/9 - San Diego - 12/5 - KC - 6/21 - Pats - 3/7 - Tenn - 19/22 - Houston- 32/11

It looks like Denver has faced a tougher challenge defensively than did Seattle.

The teams played 5 common opponents,

Jacksonville - Houston - Colts - Tennessee & the NYG. Both were 4-1 with both losing to the Colts by 6 points. Both beat Jax easily, the Texans took the seahawks into OT while Denver easily beat Houston.The 'hawks beat Tenn by 7 while the Broncos won by 3 and finally, the Seahawks shut out the NYG 24-0 and Denver beat NY by 41-23.

Just some food for thought !

[cj's dad]

Additional info:

Both lost to the Colts; the 'Hawks lost to the 49er's and Arizona, the Broncos lost to the Pats and SD. The Broncos lost to teams statistically superior to the two that Seattle lost to IMO.

[burnsy]

Additional info:

Both lost to the Colts; the 'Hawks lost to the 49er's and Arizona, the Broncos lost to the Pats and SD. The Broncos lost to teams statistically superior to the two that Seattle lost to IMO.

I totally disagree. Are you trying to say that SD and NE are better than San Fran and Arizona? The division rivals that Seattle faced two times during the regular season? That's one of the problems I have with taking Denver. I think San Fran could of won any other of the divisions and Arizona would of made the playoffs in any other division. Arizona beat the living crap out of Indy, the Rams beat the living shit out of Indy in Indy and they were the worst in that division. Indy went 2-2 vs the NFC west but got their asses kicked by the two worst teams. It was also the 4th week when they beat San Fran, who played way better as the season went on. At one point this season Arizona covered 8 out of 9 in a row or something like that... I would have to check for the exact stat but Seattle won the best division in football..hands down. I played the entire division one week and they went 4-0 vs the spread with the Rams beating Chicago by scoring over 40 points. At the time Chicago had "playoff hopes". With the parity some of these divisions are just awful. Denver beat San Diego and New England at home...teams that I think would get clobbered in the NFC this year. The playoff competition was way tougher in the NFC IMO.
If this were a horse race Seattle would be dropping in class for this game and to some extent Denver is moving up. Just like racing, Denver can win...but there's no way in hell I would take them as the fave. To be honest I think the two best teams already played each other when Seattle won the NFC championship. There is always the possibility of an "upset" or "let down" in the Super Bowl.....but I would not be surprised if Denver gets blown out in this game.

[pandy]

Seattle did play against very weak offenses, except for the one game against the Saints. With the exception of the 49ers, an elite team for sure, the Seahawks schedule wasn't tougher than the Broncos. The Broncos actually played 8 games against teams that made the playoffs, the Seahawks 5. But, I can understand why some would back the Seahawks because they beat the 49ers. Hard to argue with that thinking. However, if you watched the game, the officials really screwed up badly on several bad calls against the Niners.

I would imagine that Seattle's defense has to produce at least two scores for the Seahawks to win. I don't have confidence in the Seahawks offense. Wilson was sacked 44 times during the season, which is extremely high for any team, but very high for a team that doesn't pass that often. Denver will be blitzing all game.

[tucker6]

I totally disagree. Are you trying to say that SD and NE are better than San Fran and Arizona? The division rivals that Seattle faced two times during the regular season? That's one of the problems I have with taking Denver. I think San Fran could of won any other of the divisions and Arizona would of made the playoffs in any other division. Arizona beat the living crap out of Indy, the Rams beat the living shit out of Indy in Indy and they were the worst in that division. Indy went 2-2 vs the NFC west but got their asses kicked by the two worst teams. It was also the 4th week when they beat San Fran, who played way better as the season went on. At one point this season Arizona covered 8 out of 9 in a row or something like that... I would have to check for the exact stat but Seattle won the best division in football..hands down. I played the entire division one week and they went 4-0 vs the spread with the Rams beating Chicago by scoring over 40 points. At the time Chicago had "playoff hopes". With the parity some of these divisions are just awful. Denver beat San Diego and New England at home...teams that I think would get clobbered in the NFC this year. The playoff competition was way tougher in the NFC IMO.
If this were a horse race Seattle would be dropping in class for this game and to some extent Denver is moving up. Just like racing, Denver can win...but there's no way in hell I would take them as the fave. To be honest I think the two best teams already played each other when Seattle won the NFC championship. There is always the possibility of an "upset" or "let down" in the Super Bowl.....but I would not be surprised if Denver gets blown out in this game.
Are you trying to convince us or yourself about Seattle?

[Robert Fischer]

71% of public is on Denver

Line opened at pick 0

Line currently Den -2 (for at least the last 24hrs).

[Valuist]

It looks like Denver has faced a tougher challenge defensively than did Seattle.

[/b]

This statement couldn't be more wrong. There's only one real metric for judging a defense; yards allowed. Teams throw pic sixes and special teams give up TDs so scoring is not a good metric. Here's the Seattle schedule and the defensive ranking:

week 1: Carolina 2nd
week 2: San Fran 5th
week 3: Jax 27th tie
week 4: Houston 7th
week 5: Indianapolis 20th
week 6: Tennessee 14th
week 7: Arizona 6th
week 8: St. Louis 15th
week 9: Tampa 17th
week 10: Atlanta 27th
week 11: Minnesota 31st
week 12: New Orleans 4th
week 13: San Fran 5th
week 14: NY Giants 8th
week 15: Arizona 6th
week 16: St. Louis 15th
playoff 1: New Orleans 4th
playoff 2: San Fran 5th

Denver:
week 1: Baltimore 12th
week 2: NY Giants 8th
week 3: Oakland 22th
week 4: Philadelphia 29th
week 5: Dallas 32th
week 6: Jacksonville 27th tie
week 7: Indianapolis 20th
week 8: Washington 18th
week 9: San Diego 23rd
week 10: Kansas City 24th
week 11: New England 26th
week 12: Kansas City 24th
week 13: Tennessee 14th
week 14: San Diego 23rd
week 15: Houston 7th
week 16: Oakland 22nd
playoff 1: San Diego 23rd
playoff 2: New England 26th

games vs top 6: Seattle 8 Denver 0
games vs teams ranked 20th or worse: Seattle 4 Denver 13

Not to take anything away from Manning, the terrible defensive opposition must be taken into account when looking at his numbers.

[Valuist]

71% of public is on Denver

Line opened at pick 0

Line currently Den -2 (for at least the last 24hrs).

Those who like Seattle haven't bet yet. Why take +2 or even +2.5 when there's a possibility one can get 3? I doubt that it ever hits 3 because the books know they will get buried with Seattle money if they move to 3.

[lamboguy]

Are you trying to convince us or yourself about Seattle?i convinced myself about Seattle before they even got in the Superbowl, i gave 2 1/2 points with the NFC, now i am going to have to double down on the Seahawks +2.

as it turns out, i made a very bad bet and i am probably making another bad one, but i kinda like the quarterback for the Seahawks, Russ Wilson. i have a feeling that he is going to run the Bronco defense off their feet and by the 4th quarter the Bronco's will be gasping for air!

i just fully convinced myself

[pandy]

I agree, Seattle faced tougher defenses than Denver. But, Seattle faced weak offenses, so that kind of evens it out, doesn't it? Bottom line, the NFC teams were more defensive teams and the AFC teams were higher scoring.

But, that tells me Denver's defense is better than it looks on paper. They had to face better offenses including, Eagles, Cowboys, Patriots, Chargers. The Seahawks only faced one top 10 ranked offense all year, the Saints.

[Robert Goren]

The question is how great is the Seahawk defense. Is it as great as the 85 bears or 2000 Ravens? I think it is. I think Seattle wins pretty easily. I have watch Denver all year(we get all their games here) and I am not impressed.

[burnsy]

Are you trying to convince us or yourself about Seattle?


Both, of course.....:lol: . Its always a gamble. But I'm convinced Seattle played the tougher schedule including the playoff rounds. Plus, all the so called experts on TV are picking Denver. They are usually not gamblers so they pick who they like (want) not by the facts. All of my plays were on here for everyone to see. So I usually don't need to convince myself. I know I can pick winners at this. I just think its crazy to claim Denver played the better schedule and made a pretty good case why they didn't. If you're going to try to convince me that San Diego and New England are better, I'm probably going to laugh. Because my money says New Orleans and San Francisco are better and a tougher two game series. If San Fran had won I would like them over Denver too. I am convinced Seattle is a good bet as the underdog....WIN or LOSE. Plus, you can't convince people on football handicapping. Most can't grasp the "team" concept of it...its the same every game, every year....one or two guys can't win in football, it takes a team.

[Investorater]

Since I'm located :7: miles from the Colorado border I favor the Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. \o/

[pandy]

This articles talks about something that could be a key to the game, Seattle's defensive holding and pass interference.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1941610-key-to-super-bowl-xlviii-isnt-a-player-or-coach-its-referee-terry-mcaulay

[cj's dad]

but I would not be surprised if Denver gets blown out in this game.

Yeah, that Russell Wilson is an elite type QB and a midget also. If the guy were really 5'11" he would be listed at 6'. He is probably closer to 5'9"

[pandy]

The players are big so that makes him look smaller. 5' 11' is small for the NFL. Doug Flutie was listed as 5' 10" and he looked smaller, to me.

When you go to an NBA game, the guys who looked the shortest on TV, like some of the guards, look tall when they walk by you or the average person.

[cj's dad]

This statement couldn't be more wrong. There's only one real metric for judging a defense; yards allowed. Teams throw pic sixes and special teams give up TDs so scoring is not a good metric. Here's the Seattle schedule and the defensive ranking:

What are you talking about???

I am questioning how good Seattle's defense really is. They have not faced any team with the explosiveness of Denver ranked 1st in points and yardage. You go on to post the strength of the opponents defense. That stat, I am pretty sure would apply to how well the 2 SB teams offense did against teams on their schedule. I'm pretty sure Seattle's defense will be lined up against Denver's offense

[pandy]

You are both right. Seattle faced good defenses, check, Seattle did not face an offense like Denvers, check. Seattle, overall, faced poor offensive teams because the teams they faced were defensive teams.

[PhantomOnTour]

"Everyone has a plan - until they get punched in the face"
-Mike Tyson

I am sure Denver has all their lil sexy short routes mapped out, and Peyton has all his Omahas in line....but what happens when some Seahawk knocks the snot out of some Bronco?
It will happen...then we'll see what Denver is made of.

Manning is all sexy with his TD passes, yards and QBR rating...things easily quantified by fantasy folks and stat geeks. But you cannot quantify fear and intimidation and confusion and hesitation and pain....that's what the Seahawks deal in and it doesn't readily show up in the box score.
But it's there, and it will be there on Sunday.
Sevens will becomes threes for Denver and that will make the difference in my opinion. Seahawks D will hold and force FGs instead of giving up TDs.

Seattle wins 20-16

[thaskalos]

"Everyone has a plan - until they get punched in the face"
-Mike Tyson

I am sure Denver has all their lil sexy short routes mapped out, and Peyton has all his Omahas in line....but what happens when some Seahawk knocks the snot out of some Bronco?
It will happen...then we'll see what Denver is made of.

Manning is all sexy with his TD passes, yards and QBR rating...things easily quantified by fantasy folks and stat geeks. But you cannot quantify fear and intimidation and confusion and hesitation and pain....that's what the Seahawks deal in and it doesn't readily show up in the box score.
But it's there, and it will be there on Sunday.
Sevens will becomes threes for Denver and that will make the difference in my opinion. Seahawks D will hold and force FGs instead of giving up TDs.

Seattle wins 20-16

Couldn't have said it better myself! :ThmbUp:

I make the score 24-20 Seattle.

[pandy]

If the Seahawks are as rugged as many people think, and they do seem to be more physical than some teams, then this will be an excellent test of skill vs strength. Personally I think the Broncos will do just fine physically.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

The playoffs and the Super Bowl are a test of a team's character.

After watching that Sunday Night debacle when Denver blew a 24-0 halftime lead, I don't understand how anyone can bet them with confidence. :confused:

Halftime: Denver 10, Seattle 7
Final: Seattle 28, Denver 20

[Robert Fischer]

Rooting for the Seahawks to win.

As far as handicapping the game, from my perspective, I think that Denver is far superior. I don't see an elite defense as being an equalizer vs. an elite offense that happens to be able to exploit the modern passing game.

My guess is that Seattle will need to significantly win the TURNOVER battle(meaning create some turnovers with their Defense as well as no big giveaways on Offense) in order to win this game.

Football is complicated to handicap. I'm just going to enjoy the game.

[lansdale]

Seattle 24 Denver 17

Seattle D. = Denver O.
Seattle O. > Denver D.

[RaceBookJoe]

Have to cheer for the Broncos in hopes my bro-in-law gets his first Super Bowl Ring :ThmbUp:

[Tape Reader]

Have to cheer for the Broncos in hopes my bro-in-law gets his first Super Bowl Ring :ThmbUp:

Who? What have I missed?

[RaceBookJoe]

Who? What have I missed?

My brother-in-law is Dave Magazu, the oline coach

[Tape Reader]

My brother-in-law is Dave Magazu, the oline coach

Thank you. Best of luck!

[pandy]

My brother-in-law is Dave Magazu, the oline coach


Wow. What a great experience for him. I hope he's soaking it all in. The offensive line has done a great job, Manning was only sacked 18 times which I believe was the lowest in the league and they run the ball well too.

[Maximillion]

One big unknown,imo, is how much impact the venue in Seattle has on opposing teams.It appears that weather will not be a factor in this game.

I have great respect for the Seahawk defense,but I dont see Manning in any way overwhelmed here,and I think you can make the argument that this may very well be the best team he's been a part of.

Denver by more than 10.

[NJ Stinks]

I have great respect for the Seahawk defense,but I dont see Manning in any way overwhelmed here,and I think you can make the argument that this may very well be the best team he's been a part of.

Denver by more than 10.
In 2006's Super Bowl Peyton was throwing to Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Joseph Addai, and Dallas Clark. I find it hard to believe that Manning is throwing to better receivers this year.

Also, Dominic Rhodes and Addai combined for 190 for the Colts on the ground against the Chicago Bears in 2006.

Yea, I looked it up but only to see if your point about this being Peyton's best team was valid. At best it is debatable IMO.

[sammy the sage]

Percy Harvin will UPGRADE Seattle's offense IMMENSELY...and at 18/1 he's my wager for MVP...taking the Hawks ML as well...

Seattle's D is better...it better be...
Prefer Pete over Mr. Fox 8 days a week as far as coaching goes...
From news reports think Seattle will NOT be nearly as uptight either..

[RaceBookJoe]

Wow. What a great experience for him. I hope he's soaking it all in. The offensive line has done a great job, Manning was only sacked 18 times which I believe was the lowest in the league and they run the ball well too.

Yeah, its really cool. This is his 2nd Super Bowl, the first came when he was with the Panthers when they lost to the Patriots. Fox brought him along when he left Carolina to take the Denver gig. Before the nfl, Dave had a long college coaching career.

[badcompany]

This is a bit of an aside, but I heard Mike Francesa, a host on the sports radio network, here in NYC, say that tickets for the game aren't fetching their usual astronomical price. He seemed to be at a loss for a reason.

It's very simple. The game isn't in NYC. It's in the Meadowlands. If you're in Manhattan, it's a pain to get to the venue, and a nightmare to get back after it's over.

[wiffleball whizz]

This is a bit of an aside, but I heard Mike Francesa, a host on the sports radio network, here in NYC, say that tickets for the game aren't fetching their usual astronomical price. He seemed to be at a loss for a reason.

It's very simple. The game isn't in NYC. It's in the Meadowlands. If you're in Manhattan, it's a pain to get to the venue, and a nightmare to get back after it's over.


That's not even close to being true.......

Mike been touting all week how easy it will be to get to the stadium.....

Not a hard drive at all

[badcompany]

That's not even close to being true.......

Mike been touting all week how easy it will be to get to the stadium.....

Not a hard drive at all

Anyone flying in doesn't have a car.

That leaves renting or getting a car service. Both of those options suck.

The Meadowlands is not the Garden. With the latter, people staying at a hotel in Midtown can walk to the game or, at worst take a bus or train.

Had the Westside stadium been built, it would have been a different story.

[pandy]

I think the cold weather venue has a lot to do with it. Yes, now we know the weather will be fine, but people who travel to the Super Bowl and spend thousands of dollars, especially in this case from Denver and Seattle, are going to be planning ahead, not a few days before the game, and who wants to spend several thousand dollars on tickets, hotels, airfare, only to find out that it's 10 degrees and windy or snowing at game time, or worse yet, that they're going to cancel the game and play it on another day.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is a bit of an aside, but I heard Mike Francesa, a host on the sports radio network, here in NYC, say that tickets for the game aren't fetching their usual astronomical price. He seemed to be at a loss for a reason.

It's very simple. The game isn't in NYC. It's in the Meadowlands. If you're in Manhattan, it's a pain to get to the venue, and a nightmare to get back after it's over.

I've heard this over the past few weeks - it's referring to the secondary market (i.e., scalpers), correct??? I assume the NFL hasn't discounted tickets?

[Grits]

If he seemed at a loss that's odd given the weather in recent weeks. Maybe his befuddlement and the simple notion of well its not the Garden; had they built the Westside stadium, etc. are cause to look elsewhere. Pandy is correct, I believe. That ever moving troublemaker called MOTHER NATURE along with playing outdoors has more bearing on this than where one lives, where one flies in, or the fact there's no stadium in NYC. ... JMHO

According to Forbes, hours ago, things are going to be ok. :ThmbUp:

GO DENVER!! Do not let Seahawks, Russell Wilson, get the ball in the hands of his running back, Marshawn Lynch!!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2014/02/01/30-hours-from-kick-off-prices-for-super-bowl-tickets-rising-and-quantity-shrinking/

[badcompany]

I've heard this over the past few weeks - it's referring to the secondary market (i.e., scalpers), correct??? I assume the NFL hasn't discounted tickets?

Yes, it's not a hot ticket on the secondary market.

The weather is a legit reason, but you could make a case that the game has history attached to it, because of it being in the Northeast. That would drive up the price.

IMO, there's just no attachment between the city and the venue. I'm in midtown Manhattan, right now, and you wouldn't even know there's a game, today.

[Grits]

Attendance for each. ;) Interesting numbers over the decades.

http://www.footballdb.com/super-bowls.html

[pandy]

If he seemed at a loss that's odd given the weather in recent weeks. Maybe his befuddlement and the simple notion of well its not the Garden; had they built the Westside stadium, etc. are cause to look elsewhere. Pandy is correct, I believe. That ever moving troublemaker called MOTHER NATURE along with playing outdoors has more bearing on this than where one lives, where one flies in, or the fact there's no stadium in NYC. ... JMHO

According to Forbes, hours ago, things are going to be ok. :ThmbUp:

GO DENVER!! Do not let Seahawks, Russell Wilson, get the ball in the hands of his running back, Marshawn Lynch!!!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2014/02/01/30-hours-from-kick-off-prices-for-super-bowl-tickets-rising-and-quantity-shrinking/


I also find this an interesting part of the game, how they defense Lynch. I would think that Denver would keep their linebackers in on obvious running situations, so I don't expect Lynch to have a good game. I think the Broncos will have more rushing yards. But if Lynch does have a good game, that would make it a lot easier on Wilson.

[lamboguy]

this game seems to be a mismatch, not to good for the ratings

[TheEdge07]

Xbox qb and his bs stats getting punched right in the ...

[Robert Fischer]

not sure I agree with that 4th down try rather than the 3pts. Debatable...

Seahawks look like the champs

[Shemp Howard]

Manning's arm is dead.

He;s throwing the ball like a girl.

The Jersey mob must have gotten to it.

[RaceBookJoe]

Seattle defense is tough, Denver is in rough shape.

[Stillriledup]

Manning's arm is dead.

He;s throwing the ball like a girl.

The Jersey mob must have gotten to it.

You just had to watch the games.

[lamboguy]

here's the good news, Australia A starts in about an hour

[Robert Goren]

here's the good news, Australia A starts in about an hourAbout an hour and half too late. Who would thought that the Chili Peppers would have been drug down to Bruno Mars's level.

[Stillriledup]

Nice job by the racing industry to not have ONE track running.

Good job guys.

[HuggingTheRail]

Hey, we have a couple of Canadian harness tracks going...anyone know any biases at Rideau Carleton?

[Stillriledup]

Hey, we have a couple of Canadian harness tracks going...anyone know any biases at Rideau Carleton?
Flim Flam running also, right?

[HuggingTheRail]

Flim Flam running also, right?

Yes

[Stillriledup]

The 2 best teams played each other two weeks ago, and everyone knew it.

What a shame this turned out to be a joke of a game.

[Tom]

Just think, with no tailgate parties today, a lot of unfortunate people have to watch this game sober! :eek:

[HuggingTheRail]

Had the wrong Bruno for the halftime show...should have went with Sammartino

[PhantomOnTour]

"Everyone has a plan - until they get punched in the face"
-Mike Tyson

I am sure Denver has all their lil sexy short routes mapped out, and Peyton has all his Omahas in line....but what happens when some Seahawk knocks the snot out of some Bronco?
It will happen...then we'll see what Denver is made of.

Manning is all sexy with his TD passes, yards and QBR rating...things easily quantified by fantasy folks and stat geeks. But you cannot quantify fear and intimidation and confusion and hesitation and pain....that's what the Seahawks deal in and it doesn't readily show up in the box score.
But it's there, and it will be there on Sunday.
Sevens will becomes threes for Denver and that will make the difference in my opinion. Seahawks D will hold and force FGs instead of giving up TDs.

Seattle wins 20-16
Going about as I expected, although I never thought Denver would be getting shut out.

Seems like some people will never learn...it's all about the D

[Stillriledup]

Had the wrong Bruno for the halftime show...should have went with Sammartino

Or this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ofpRxc0GVg

[davew]

I have heard 70% of the money was on Denver - does that mean the sportsbooks are going to have a good superbowl?

[Stillriledup]

I have heard 70% of the money was on Denver - does that mean the sportsbooks are going to have a good superbowl?

Best outcome would have been denver winning by 1....but this outcome is probably the next best thing.

They knew what they were doing opening seattle as favorite, the public who bet denver didnt really watch the games, i told someone on championship sunday 2 weeks ago that it was like watching 2 different sports, seattle played a monsterous SF team with anger and violence and vicious unbridled hitting, Denver played a slow paced game vs an overrated Patriots team and were actually struggling to hold on even having a decent sized lead...watching those games was like watching 2 different sports and yet, many people didnt think that was a factor.

[Marshall Bennett]

Only wonder how much of this dismantling of the Broncos will carry over with them next season?

[Stillriledup]

Only wonder how much of this dismantling of the Broncos will carry over with them next season?

I think it will carry over. I think they have to be thinking they need a complete overhaul to have any shot at winning a SB.

Also, if they can somehow get back to the SB with Manning as the QB, they are going to be playing Seattle, SF or some other monster team next year, this game might be in their heads a bit (or a lot).

They didnt get "outfootballed" they just got manhandled physically. They got outworked, outhit, outhustled and didnt have as much desire.

There's a lot to address in the offseason.

[MutuelClerk]

Omaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Intercourse the Broncos.

[Ocala Mike]

I watched the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet instead of the Super Bowl. It appears that Keyboard Cat had a better playbook going for him than Manning.

[Robert Goren]

I watched the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet instead of the Super Bowl. It appears that Keyboard Cat had a better playbook going for him than Manning.I am going to remember that:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Maximillion]

Wow.....not what I expected at all.

Kudos to the Seahawks......tremendous performance.

This could be a game-changer to other GMs in terms of how to build a football team.....even in todays NFL.

[horses4courses]

I watched the Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet instead of the Super Bowl. It appears that Keyboard Cat had a better playbook going for him than Manning.

I'll bet the Keyboard Cat didn't have a half dozen Dobermans chasing him. ;)

[badcompany]

Braggin' time for those of us who picked Seattle.

Special props to Burnsy who called a blowout. Those Saratogians know how to handicap.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/null_zpsa85614f5.png

[Valuist]

The 2 best teams played each other two weeks ago, and everyone knew it.

What a shame this turned out to be a joke of a game.

Absolutely. And I can make a case that Seattle may have been the best team in the PREVIOUS season as well. They fell behind 27-7 at Atlanta in the playoffs, came storming back to lose 30-28. A couple more minutes and little doubt they would've beaten the Falcons. We saw what they could do to SF; Baltimore just happened to get hot at the right time. Ravens were very fortunate not to have to take on the Hawks. It wouldn't have ended well for them.

[cj's dad]

Absolutely. And I can make a case that Seattle may have been the best team in the PREVIOUS season as well. They fell behind 27-7 at Atlanta in the playoffs, came storming back to lose 30-28. A couple more minutes and little doubt they would've beaten the Falcons. We saw what they could do to SF; Baltimore just happened to get hot at the right time. Ravens were very fortunate not to have to take on the Hawks. It wouldn't have ended well for them.

We will never know will we ?? What a lame statement.

[Valuist]

We will never know will we ?? What a lame statement.

Its not lame all. Be thankful you didn't have to play them. They would've kicked the Ravens' ass.

[cj's dad]

Yeah and if Johnny Unitas was not injured and could have started SB III the Colts would have kicked the the Jets Ass/ Coulda/woulda/shoulda !!!

[Maximillion]

Its not lame all. Be thankful you didn't have to play them. They would've kicked the Ravens' ass.

This is what threw me off this season....both the 49er and Seahawk defense seemed to have improved simultaneously off of last year.

The Denver offense presented a stiffer challenge than the Ravens and Atlanta, no?

[CincyHorseplayer]

Never ever thought I would say the best thing about this Super Bowl was Bruno Mars!!HAHAHA!!And I'm a football fan not,well you get it.

I did think the entertainment director made a major gaffe though.With Bruno's damn near funk orchestra onstage and the Chili Peppers there too,not doing their cover of Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground" was an absolute sin.Tell me what you think soundwise?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOLFtk9joI

I think it would have been over the top awesome.

[AFilly4theAges]

General Manning welcome to 'Little Big Horn"!

[ManU918]

Burnsy and anyone else who had the Seahawks... Excellent call and congrats. I couldn't have been more wrong about the side.

[Robert Goren]

The question is how great is the Seahawk defense. Is it as great as the 85 bears or 2000 Ravens? I think it is. I think Seattle wins pretty easily. I have watch Denver all year(we get all their games here) and I am not impressed.Sometimes I amaze even myself at how smart I am when I don't have a bet down. ;)

[Valuist]

Yeah and if Johnny Unitas was not injured and could have started SB III the Colts would have kicked the the Jets Ass/ Coulda/woulda/shoulda !!!

You got your trophy last year. The Ravens weren't the only fortunate ones. If San Fran had to play Seattle instead of Atlanta, they wouldn't have beaten them either.

This Seattle team is the best team since your 2000 Ravens. Sorry Patriot fans but that is the truth.

[Robert Goren]

Never ever thought I would say the best thing about this Super Bowl was Bruno Mars!!HAHAHA!!And I'm a football fan not,well you get it.

I did think the entertainment director made a major gaffe though.With Bruno's damn near funk orchestra onstage and the Chili Peppers there too,not doing their cover of Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground" was an absolute sin.Tell me what you think soundwise?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOLFtk9joI

I think it would have been over the top awesome.It is a toss up over who sucked more, the Broncos or Bruno Mars.

[Valuist]

This is what threw me off this season....both the 49er and Seahawk defense seemed to have improved simultaneously off of last year.

The Denver offense presented a stiffer challenge than the Ravens and Atlanta, no?

I remember watching the Bears team in 1984 and realizing they were a bad ass team who was going to win a Super Bowl at some point. It took a year; they just weren't quite ready. Lots of parallels with Seattle. The defense plays with a swagger like that Bears team, or 2000 Ravens team. A beast mode RB who may be the toughest back in the league to tackle. A QB who does not make many mistakes, ala McMahon. Returners who can flip the field position. The 85 Bears were the youngest team in the league at the time, and I thought they said Seattle was either the youngest or 2nd youngest. Seattle was a little immature last year and dug themselves into too deep a hole and they paid a price for it. I think Wilson knew they were close. He went to the Super Bowl to see how to prepare so he'd be ready when it was his turn. And like Pete Carroll or not, he's now won championships at the NCAA level and now the NFL.

But Seattle should remember the 85 Bears and 2000 Ravens weren't able to repeat, or even get back to the SB.

[thaskalos]

You got your trophy last year. The Ravens weren't the only fortunate ones. If San Fran had to play Seattle instead of Atlanta, they wouldn't have beaten them either.

This Seattle team is the best team since your 2000 Ravens. Sorry Patriot fans but that is the truth.
And with their youth...they figure to be around a while.

Pretty scary, if you ask me...

[CincyHorseplayer]

It is a toss up over who sucked more, the Broncos or Bruno Mars.

I usually listen to jazz or Mozart in morning and a plethora of different stuff elsewhere,love punk and metal,but grew up on Motown and Bruno has the stuff.In short not a drab taste absorbing pop bubble gum over here,the kid has it.My 40 year old azz can recognize the talent! :cool:

[CincyHorseplayer]

I was not impressed with Seattle's effort vs the 49'rs but they showed a big something today wow.Very impressive.This was a tour deforce.

[badcompany]

I was not impressed with Seattle's effort vs the 49'rs but they showed a big something today wow.Very impressive.This was a tour deforce.

IMO, San Fran would've done basically the same thing to Denver.

[Valuist]

I should clarify my post above. I meant Seattle is the best defense since the 2000 Ravens. I would have to still rate the 2007 Patriots ahead of them, even though that team didn't end up with the title.

[CincyHorseplayer]

IMO, San Fran would've done basically the same thing to Denver.

Watching Denver lose to San Diego a while back I knew they could be had.And while most of the best defenses ended up in the NFC this year I'm not going to go so far as to say any of the good ones could have "Hung Denver out to dry".I didn't think they were God's gift.I was so absorbed in the Superbowl I paid no attention til the last race race was run at Gulfstream today and I got nabbed at the wire for a win,double,and pick 3.Damn! :D

Good to talk at ya BadCo.

[redshift1]

IMO, San Fran would've done basically the same thing to Denver.

That was the SB not today.

[kingfin66]

Absolutely. And I can make a case that Seattle may have been the best team in the PREVIOUS season as well. They fell behind 27-7 at Atlanta in the playoffs, came storming back to lose 30-28. A couple more minutes and little doubt they would've beaten the Falcons. We saw what they could do to SF; Baltimore just happened to get hot at the right time. Ravens were very fortunate not to have to take on the Hawks. It wouldn't have ended well for them.

Seattle actually took the lead in that game. They ultimately lost not because they needed more time, but because their defense could not close out the final 30 or so seconds of the game. I think the Ravens beat an excellent SF team in the Super Bowl. There is no guarantee that last year's Seattle team would have beaten last year's SF team. Even if they had, the Super Bowl could have still been won by Baltimore. It is really all conjecture at this point.

[JustRalph]

Racetrack prices look chinsey compared to Super Bowl prices

Hat tip Dean

Check out that price for Hot Chocolate

[thaskalos]

Racetrack prices look chinsey compared to Super Bowl prices

Hat tip Dean

Check out that price for Hot Chocolate

They must have expected much colder weather... :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

Hot chocolate vs price of beer?They are cultivating beerdrunks and cheesesteak eaters.Nothing besides!

[JustRalph]

CBS actually ran this piece in a story about the top secret security center at the Super Bowl.

What's wrong with the pic? You tell me........

[NJ Stinks]

Hilarious, Ralph! :lol:

[JustRalph]

Finally a Texas team has a Super Bowl winning quarterback under contract.






















Too bad it's the Texas Rangers...........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/texas-rangers-russell-wilson-rule-5-draft_n_4433214.html

[Stillriledup]

Racetrack prices look chinsey compared to Super Bowl prices

Hat tip Dean

Check out that price for Hot Chocolate

Yikes, that should be illegal to charge those prices.

[Marshall Bennett]

For me, this was the worst Super Bowl ever. The game was one-sided from the beginning full of dumb mistakes and poor ability. The halftime show was ridiculous, noisy, and a load of misdirected talent. I'd be more entertained watching a stage full of burning garbage.
I watched alone for the first time in years. Had I known what I was in store for, I would have skipped and done something else. Anything. :mad:

[Tom]

Talk about your defensive games.....the freaking coin toss was INTERCEPTED! :eek:

[burnsy]

Braggin' time for those of us who picked Seattle.

Special props to Burnsy who called a blowout. Those Saratogians know how to handicap.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/null_zpsa85614f5.png

Thanks, it helps that I've been following this game forever and I'm very OBJECTIVE in my analyses. The HYPE on INDIVIDUAL players never affects my OPINION. I'm all about the "TEAM". The faster and stronger team is more important than any ONE player. Seattle went 13-3, beat the crap out of numerous (very good) teams and somehow people made them out to be "chop liver." Russell Wilson passes when they need it.....he's NOT meant to be a Peyton Manning. If he's passing 30 or 40 times, Seattle is doing BAD! People can't get past that....200 yards or so is all they want out of him. But I can spot arm strength and that bastard can throw the ball hard....on the run. When he's planted and set it gets there even faster. Making him the "weak link" was a joke and the strength and speed of Seattle's defense was HIGHLY UNDER RATED by the MEDIA. Like I said in my first post....when I woke up and Denver was the fave..it was like a dream scenario for me. Just could not figure out WHY? Because the "price" did not line up with the facts. Of course, if you listen to the "noise" that's out there, you could not come up with that opinion. But going into this game, the facts told you who the better FOOTBALL TEAM was. The hype told you who the MEDIA and PUBLIC......LIKED not who was actually better. You can win many a football game by realizing this.

[notoutofpounds]

Omaha ! Omaha ! Is anyone else tired of hearing about the "Legacy of Peyton Manning ? "

The sporting press was a little too preoccupied with this storyline, ESPN I am looking in your direction.

[MutuelClerk]

It was good to see a team actually tackle receivers after they caught the ball. Seattle might be dominant the next few years the stage is set. Only two things can stop them. Ego and salary cap.

[netbet]

Hahaha. We should have known!

Talk about your defensive games.....the freaking coin toss was INTERCEPTED! :eek:

[burnsy]

Omaha ! Omaha ! Is anyone else tired of hearing about the "Legacy of Peyton Manning ? "

The sporting press was a little too preoccupied with this storyline, ESPN I am looking in your direction.

I told my buddy at the party...second quarter: The only "Omaha" he will be calling is Mutual of Omaha to up his insurance policy. that's the point, when you are in an avalanche...because the other team is physically overwhelming you....the QB does not even matter....most people never get that basic principle of football. can't throw if they knock you down or rush you....can't gain crap if they hit you the second its caught.......you blink, at least 3 guys are on your ass...that's how Seattle does it. We called the 85 Bears "fire ants"...these guys play the same game. All these jackasses on tv are "surprised" this morning...I wasn't. Seen this all before,,,the Ravens, the Giants, The Steelers...the Pats over the Rams

[FantasticDan]

For me, this was the worst Super Bowl ever. The game was one-sided from the beginning full of dumb mistakes and poor ability. The halftime show was ridiculous, noisy, and a load of misdirected talent. I'd be more entertained watching a stage full of burning garbage.You're nuts, Mars was outstanding. And the reviews this morning are glowing across the board. :ThmbUp:

[Marshall Bennett]

You're nuts, Mars was outstanding. And the reviews this morning are glowing across the board. :ThmbUp:
Yeah well, I think people that go for that sort of far-out, drug-crazed, noisy shit are nuts. So there ya go.
Looked like to me the crowd clapping and screaming up closer to the stage were of the 15 to 25 age group. I suppose by throwing in most liberals since they are of the relatively same demeanor, the reviews would be positive. News outlets writing these reviews are liberal as well, no doubt.

[horses4courses]

Yeah well, I think people that go for that sort of far-out, drug-crazed, noisy shit are nuts, so there ya go.

Been all the rage for getting on 50 years now, hasn't it?

Bruno Mars is not my cup of tea, either.
Anyone can see, though, that he has some talent.

I find it refreshing that someone under 30 was performing at SB halftime.
Normally, they are wheeling out washed-up rockers that are supposed to please us over-50s.
By and large, they aren't very entertaining.

Why not have someone out there with some energy that younger people can appreciate?
It's 10-12 minutes during the break of a football game - the one game of the year that most families watch together.

Brother....... :bang:

[PhantomOnTour]

Yeah well, I think people that go for that sort of far-out, drug-crazed, noisy shit are nuts. So there ya go.
Looked like to me the crowd clapping and screaming up closer to the stage were of the 15 to 25 age group. I suppose by throwing in most liberals since they are of the relatively same demeanor, the reviews would be positive. News outlets writing these reviews are liberal as well, no doubt.
You have totally lost your shit - and I find it hilarious :lol:

In the "Best Band" thread you stated how much you like Neil Young. There's clean and sober for ya :cool:
I see you also like Queen - hmmmm...

[badcompany]

Talk about your defensive games.....the freaking coin toss was INTERCEPTED! :eek:

None of the talk show hosts picked up what Namath said after his goof:

"I always had a quick release."

[Valuist]

Been all the rage for getting on 50 years now, hasn't it?

Bruno Mars is not my cup of tea, either.
Anyone can see, though, that he has some talent.

I find it refreshing that someone under 30 was performing at SB halftime.
Normally, they are wheeling out washed-up rockers that are supposed to please us over-50s.
By and large, they aren't very entertaining.

Why not have someone out there with some energy that younger people can appreciate?
It's 10-12 minutes during the break of a football game - the one game of the year that most families watch together.



Brother....... :bang:

Why do they have to have ANYBODY performing? Its halftime. Players are programmed for 15 minute breaks. They have all that adrenaline flowing, then they have to shut it down for 30-40 minutes and flip a switch? Its supposed to be about football and determining a champion.

[horses4courses]

In the "Best Band" thread you stated how much you like Neil Young. There's clean and sober for ya :cool:

:lol:

I caught a Neil Young/Crazy Horse concert in Sacramento in the early '90s.
My ears were ringing for a week..........

[horses4courses]

Why do they have to have ANYBODY performing? Its halftime. Players are programmed for 15 minute breaks. They have all that adrenaline flowing, then they have to shut it down for 30-40 minutes and flip a switch? Its supposed to be about football and determining a champion.

At this point, the Super Bowl is about more than football.
Maybe not for those who appreciate the sport, but they've created a monster.

[Valuist]

Its funny how the league offices for the NFL will preach how they care about player safety. But they never gave a damn about it until the ex-players sued them. They actually scheduled more Thursday night games this year than before. 4 days isn't enough to recover. And in the Super Bowl, they lengthen the halftime from 12 minutes to about 35 while the field is covered with various people and equipment as the players cool off, only to have to turn on the adrenaline again.

[Clocker]

MetLife stadium today:

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/sptusnflexperts/snow-metlife-002.jpg

[FantasticDan]

You have totally lost your shit - and I find it hilarious :lol: In the "Best Band" thread you stated how much you like Neil Young. There's clean and sober for ya :cool:Maybe he's a fan of Young's quiet, contemplative, NON FAR-OUT OR LIBERAL performances.. :lol:

PdiCJUysIT0

[pandy]

Its funny how the league offices for the NFL will preach how they care about player safety. But they never gave a damn about it until the ex-players sued them. They actually scheduled more Thursday night games this year than before. 4 days isn't enough to recover. And in the Super Bowl, they lengthen the halftime from 12 minutes to about 35 while the field is covered with various people and equipment as the players cool off, only to have to turn on the adrenaline again.

I totally agree. I don't see how you can play NFL football on 3 days rest. That has to wear on the players.

[JustRalph]

Bruno Mars is a matter of taste. Just like any other music. I found it derivative.

Maybe he is doing a purposeful tribute to James Brown. If so, good for him. He nails it. There is nothing new in music. It's all been done before.

[horses4courses]

Bruno Mars is a matter of taste. Just like any other music. I found it derivative.

Maybe he is doing a purposeful tribute to James Brown. If so, good for him. He nails it. There is nothing new in music. It's all been done before.

I saw more Michael Jackson than James Brown.
But, there you have it....

[rastajenk]

The shiny gold jackets were a throwback to an era long before Michael Jackson, but I'd be pretty sure the Mars guy would appreciate the connection.

I thought the halftime was all right. No faux controversy or ginned-up edginess, and, as mentioned above, we weren't subjected to aging rockers well past their primes. It could easily have been much worse, and has been many times.

[FantasticDan]

I saw more Michael Jackson than James Brown.He can only do Michael if he has the glove.. :D :ThmbUp:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82872039/

[Clocker]

He can only do Michael if he has the glove.. :D :ThmbUp:


He could have borrowed Peyton's. He wasn't doing anything with it.

[Marshall Bennett]

You have totally lost your shit - and I find it hilarious :lol:

In the "Best Band" thread you stated how much you like Neil Young. There's clean and sober for ya :cool:
I see you also like Queen - hmmmm...
If you put what crap was on stage last night in the same boat with Neil and Queen, then it's your shit that's adrift. :cool:
I find that quite hilarious. :lol:

[PhantomOnTour]

Yeah well, I think people that go for that sort of far-out, drug-crazed, noisy shit are nuts. So there ya go.
Looked like to me the crowd clapping and screaming up closer to the stage were of the 15 to 25 age group. I suppose by throwing in most liberals since they are of the relatively same demeanor, the reviews would be positive. News outlets writing these reviews are liberal as well, no doubt.
Not only have you lost your shit - you've apparently lost your reading comprehension skills as well.
I am not defending Bruno Mars or comparing him to your drug using hero, Neil Young.
I am merely pointing out how lame it is to call Bruno Mars "far out -drug crazed" and at the same time say that Neil Young is brilliant.

I would explain it further, but you live in Texas and I think you're a Bama fan, and therefore beyond help ;)

[Marshall Bennett]

:lol:

I caught a Neil Young/Crazy Horse concert in Sacramento in the early '90s.
My ears were ringing for a week..........
Well, if you'd return to the thread about the 80's you'd see that following his "Tonight's the Night" album (1975) I didn't care for his music. He was a brilliant songwriter none the less. Personally, I liked very little from the early 90's.

[JustRalph]

I say we all put on Manilow's greatest hits and chill........


That may be the first time I have used that phrase..........

[kingfin66]

It was good to see a team actually tackle receivers after they caught the ball. Seattle might be dominant the next few years the stage is set. Only two things can stop them. Ego and salary cap.

They should be okay with the ego, but the salary cap is very REAL.

[Marshall Bennett]

Not only have you lost your shit - you've apparently lost your reading comprehension skills as well.
I am not defending Bruno Mars or comparing him to your drug using hero, Neil Young.
I am merely pointing out how lame it is to call Bruno Mars "far out -drug crazed" and at the same time say that Neil Young is brilliant.

I would explain it further, but you live in Texas and I think you're a Bama fan, and therefore beyond help ;)
Here again you're full of shit. If you knew anything about Neil Young which you obviously don't, he hated hard drugs and the most he ever got around was pot and alcohol. I suppose in the minds of many that makes him a drug using hero. If that's the case 90% of them are.

[PhantomOnTour]

Here again you're full of shit. If you knew anything about Neil Young which you obviously don't, he hated hard drugs and the most he ever got around was pot and alcohol. I suppose in the minds of many that makes him a drug using hero. If that's the case 90% of them are.
He may have hated hard drugs - but he did them....cocaine for example.
Google the man...look it up.
About the only thing he didn't do was heroin.
Check out a book called Shakey

[Marshall Bennett]

I read Shakey as well as the more recent book he wrote himself. I don't recall the cocaine use, but I'm not surprised. Don't believe he rolled in it though.
All I did was state an opinion with my initial post. Didn't intend to brew a war with personal assaults.
I'm done with it.

[badcompany]

Btw,

Where are the experts, Grits & Whizz, who seemed to think I didn't know what I was talking about when I said getting to and from the game was gonna be a nightmare?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/null_zps80f64941.png

[cj]

Curious what those think about Denver going for 2 when down 36-6. I realize that it was highly unlikely to matter, but it seemed a really, really dumb decision to me. Even if you score four times and make four two point conversions, you still have 32 and are four points behind, needing another touchdown.

Better option would be just kick each time you score then go for two if somehow you get it to 36-34. Like I said, probably was never going to matter, just didn't understand the thinking.

[badcompany]

Curious what those think about Denver going for 2 when down 36-6. I realize that it was highly unlikely to matter, but it seemed a really, really dumb decision to me. Even if you score four times and make four two point conversions, you still have 32 and are four points behind, needing another touchdown.

Better option would be just kick each time you score then go for two if somehow you get it to 36-34. Like I said, probably was never going to matter, just didn't understand the thinking.
At 36-8, they needed 4 touchdowns to tie. 36-7, they still would have needed a 2 pt conversion down the line. Even though we're talking about extreme longshots, IMO, it was the right move.

[Stillriledup]

At 36-8, they needed 4 touchdowns to tie. 36-7, they still would have needed a 2 pt conversion down the line. Even though we're talking about extreme longshots, IMO, it was the right move.

CJ is right, you kick the point at that moment because if you go for it and miss, the psychological ramifications are huge...if you're down by 29, you get 4 TDs and 3 PATS and you go for 2 on the last TD to tie the game, too early to go for it.

Also, not that it mattered, but the opening kickoff the guy ran the ball from deep in the end zone and only got to the 12 yard line....if he takes a touchback and its at the 20, the bad snap wouldnt have went into the end zone.....but, in retrospect, maybe it was a good thing it was a safety and not Seattle ball on the Denver 5.

[cj]

At 36-8, they needed 4 touchdowns to tie. 36-7, they still would have needed a 2 pt conversion down the line. Even though we're talking about extreme longshots, IMO, it was the right move.

I just don't see how to be honest. You only needed one two point conversion at that point (again, I know the chances of a comeback were slim) to tie the game with five scores. Coaches almost universally don't try for one until they absolutely must have it. The biggest thing is that there was no real advantage to getting it early, or getting multiple two-pointers. Even if you make 4 of them on four scores, you still need another touchdown.

[thaskalos]

It was neither the wrong nor the right play, IMO.

It was just an attempt by an outplayed and completely demoralized team to put up as many points as possible.

I don't see what good the extra point would have done either.

[MutuelClerk]

Neil Young rock GOD. Seen him 12 times live. So many different formats over the years. Did he smoke pot, drink too much? Yes. Of course if he was on Xanax, Ambien, oxycontin, or percocet he'd be like about 75% of "normal" people over 50 and accepted. Damn druggies. Hangem high.

[MutuelClerk]

Then again. Every junkie is like a settin sun.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Funny thread.For me it was the best thing about the game but universally Mars was at least the most interesting because it's more worthy of discussion than the farce of the game!I'm a Doors fan so I see Neil Young as a red headed stepchild!Not impressed with him at all in any album.He sings like he has been impaled or constipated.It's "Me Generation" overhyped genius BS.You passed 30 a long time ago so you aren't relevant anymore.Get over it!

[badcompany]

I just don't see how to be honest. You only needed one two point conversion at that point (again, I know the chances of a comeback were slim) to tie the game with five scores. Coaches almost universally don't try for one until they absolutely must have it. The biggest thing is that there was no real advantage to getting it early, or getting multiple two-pointers. Even if you make 4 of them on four scores, you still need another touchdown.

They weren't thinking about four of them. They were looking to make it a four touchdown game. IMO, it was more psychological than anything. At 36-7, even four touchdowns isn't enough. 36-8, there's a tiny glimmer of hope.

Btw, you're right about coaches not going for 2 until they have to, but this was a highly unusual situation, in the Super Bowl, no less.

[badcompany]

It was neither the wrong nor the right play, IMO.

It was just an attempt by an outplayed and completely demoralized team to put up as many points as possible.

I don't see what good the extra point would have done either.

The phrase "Arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.

[NJ Stinks]

There is not much to like about the NFL except the betting aspect. The greed smells to high heaven and the "fans" keep lapping it up.

1. Somebody mentioned the Thursday night games being brutal on the players. Does anyone doubt the players union had a vote and the players approved Thursday night games for a few dollars more?

2. Personal Seat License anyone?

3. Night games in Green Bay or Foxboro in December or January?

4. The commissioner wants another team from each conference in the playoffs. Why? Why water down making the playoffs even more?

5. Last time I went to a NFL game it seemed like some guy was permanently on the field with a pole indicating a TV timeout.

You know, we talk a lot here about all the problems we have with the horseracing industry. Compared to the way the NFL treats it's fans, I'd say we are unbelievably lucky as horseracing "fans".


Excepting the greedy so-and-so's who run Churchill Downs, of course.


Oh yea, about Mars and the halftime show. Matters not to me. Unless they decide to show live horseracing at the half, I'm busy.

[kingfin66]

Neil Young rock GOD. Seen him 12 times live. So many different formats over the years. Did he smoke pot, drink too much? Yes. Of course if he was on Xanax, Ambien, oxycontin, or percocet he'd be like about 75% of "normal" people over 50 and accepted. Damn druggies. Hangem high.

Really? That is scary if true. About the drugs I mean.

[burnsy]

There is not much to like about the NFL except the betting aspect. The greed smells to high heaven and the "fans" keep lapping it up.

1. Somebody mentioned the Thursday night games being brutal on the players. Does anyone doubt the players union had a vote and the players approved Thursday night games for a few dollars more?

2. Personal Seat License anyone?

3. Night games in Green Bay or Foxboro in December or January?

4. The commissioner wants another team from each conference in the playoffs. Why? Why water down making the playoffs even more?

5. Last time I went to a NFL game it seemed like some guy was permanently on the field with a pole indicating a TV timeout.

You know, we talk a lot here about all the problems we have with the horseracing industry. Compared to the way the NFL treats it's fans, I'd say we are unbelievably lucky as horseracing "fans".


Excepting the greedy so-and-so's who run Churchill Downs, of course.


Oh yea, about Mars and the halftime show. Matters not to me. Unless they decide to show live horseracing at the half, I'm busy.

1-4 is right on! I would not know about number 5 because I'm a Bills fan...we don't get much network attention. I have friends that are Pats fans...they hate the way the games are scheduled late for TV....it sucks for them...the actual people that "show up" with a ticket in hand. Green Bay gets the same treatment because of TV. Everything you stated is true but NFL football is very popular and lucrative. The merchandise alone makes a fortune. They even market it to women with a coaches speech in the background. That's the problem horse racing NEEDS, to be popular again. On the front page of sports sections, talked about and followed the way the NFL is.....The thing about people loving football is that the NFL can do everything you stated and charge 12 bucks for a beer.....they still don't have enough seats for everyone that wants to show up....and there's about 300 million or more watching on SB day. I don't even know what the real rating is. Horse racing just needs a fraction of that and it would be "well off". If you build it, they will come....really means....if they love it, you can charge whatever you want and dictate the schedule anyway you please. Including " TV time outs" to sell to sponsors.

[Maximillion]

I was expecting the sort of dream-matchup we never got to see,maybe something like the 99 Rams vs the 2000 Ravens.

Was more like the Bears/Pats...Ravens/Giants SB....but imo Seattle's
performance (considering the opponent, rule changes etc.) might have been even more impressive than either of the above mentioned teams....one for the ages for sure.

[Stillriledup]

I was expecting the sort of dream-matchup we never got to see,maybe something like the 99 Rams vs the 2000 Ravens.

Was more like the Bears/Pats...Ravens/Giants SB....but imo Seattle's
performance (considering the opponent, rule changes etc.) might have been even more impressive than either of the above mentioned teams....one for the ages for sure.

If Seattle and SF met in the SB, we would be talking about this game for a really long time and for all the right reasons. It was a "bad beat" that they just happen to be in the same conference and same division and arent eligible to play each other on Super Sunday.

[burnsy]

If Seattle and SF met in the SB, we would be talking about this game for a really long time and for all the right reasons. It was a "bad beat" that they just happen to be in the same conference and same division and arent eligible to play each other on Super Sunday.

Totally agree and said as much before the game. "I would of taken SF over Denver." I'm sure at the time some were laughing. But the NFC was the "class" this year...Denver had to "step it up" just to be in that game, they failed miserably. Seattle was moving down in class and Denver was moving up....then the public made the totally wrong favorite. It was the "dream scenario" for a gambler...people thought I was running my mouth, which I was. But I was pretty confident too. I think Denver would of had trouble with Carolina and the Saints too.

[Valuist]

Malcolm Smith got the MVP and I'm ok with that although I wouldn't have been surprised if it went to Wilson or Avril or Chancellor. Smith not only had the 69 int return but 10 tackles. Wilson was 18 of 25 for 206 yards 2 TDs 0 picks, 3 rushes for 26 yards. Avril was better than his numbers showed; constant pressure on Manning , disrupting the Bronco passing game. Avril also got credit for the safety on the games first play. Chancellor came up big; 10 tackles and a couple passes defended, including a huge hit on Demerius Thomas early in the game which set a tone, and let Bronco receivers know they were going to pay a price.

[cj]

Chancellor came up big; 10 tackles and a couple passes defended, including a huge hit on Demerius Thomas early in the game which set a tone, and let Bronco receivers know they were going to pay a price.

I think Thomas was clear cut LVP. He wanted no part of contact, kind of reminded me of Andre Reed against the Giants.

[Stillriledup]

If Seattle was a 28 pt favorite in Vegas, think of how much money Vegas would have won. Probably in the billions, everyone with a pulse would have went to Vegas to bet as much as they could get their hands on. :D

[horses4courses]

If Seattle was a 28 pt favorite in Vegas, think of how much money Vegas would have won. Probably in the billions, everyone with a pulse would have went to Vegas to bet as much as they could get their hands on. :D

I was very tempted to bet them -3.5, -6.5, and -9.5
Couldn't pull the trigger....... :bang:

[Stillriledup]

I was very tempted to bet them -3.5, -6.5, and -9.5
Couldn't pull the trigger....... :bang:

Sea was probably +500 on the alternate spread lines, maybe if you layed 7.5 you could have gotten 4 or 5 times your money.

[horses4courses]

Sea was probably +500 on the alternate spread lines, maybe if you layed 7.5 you could have gotten 4 or 5 times your money.

Yeah, I think $100 on each one of those would have netted me over $1K.
I never did the math because I couldn't talk myself into it.

Knew the Seahawks were stronger, but never thought it would be such a beatdown.

[Rookies]

I think Thomas was clear cut LVP. He wanted no part of contact, kind of reminded me of Andre Reed against the Giants.

Funny, CJ.

Thought the same and while I had seen XXV in person, I just reviewed the game highlights the other night. Reed started off ok, but got whacked 3 straight times in the 2nd Quarter, when the Bills could have put the Game away with one more score through the K-Gun! At least 2 were easy catches and all 3 were ones he had made throughout his career.

I loved Reed and was happy he just got into Canton. He was never one of those candy assed Receivers that never took a hit and stepped out of bounds. After Rice, he was one of the leaders in YAC, always zigging and sagging though defenders and outrunning them.

This Bills' promo film perfectly attests to what I remember of his fine career.
http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/Andre-Reed-Career-Highlights/280221aa-01cc-4a84-aba3-1fa5d565823c

Most of the highlights, I recall attending live, including his 3 TDs in the greatest comeback ever and in that 44-34 beat down of Marino and the Dolphins on the way to their first SB.

[Stillriledup]

Bruce Willis Honda Commercial after Thomas fumbled with the score 29-0, Bruce comes on and his first words are "Great game, right?"

And i thought. "Um, no"

:D

[tucker6]

I was expecting the sort of dream-matchup we never got to see,maybe something like the 99 Rams vs the 2000 Ravens.

Was more like the Bears/Pats...Ravens/Giants SB....but imo Seattle's
performance (considering the opponent, rule changes etc.) might have been even more impressive than either of the above mentioned teams....one for the ages for sure.
You bring up a question in my mind. Has a highly touted defense ever lost to a highly touted offense in the SB in the last 30 years?? I cannot recall it happening, but it must have.

[Valuist]

I was expecting the sort of dream-matchup we never got to see,maybe something like the 99 Rams vs the 2000 Ravens.

Was more like the Bears/Pats...Ravens/Giants SB....but imo Seattle's
performance (considering the opponent, rule changes etc.) might have been even more impressive than either of the above mentioned teams....one for the ages for sure.

It happened. Sort of.

The Ravens, 6-10 in 1998, played the Rams, 4-12 in 1998, in the opening week of the 1999 season. I'm sure the game only drew the interest of gamblers and fantasy leaguers, but it would be the next two Super Bowl winners. Not only did they both win it, those two teams are considered to be two of the better SB winning teams. The Rams won 27-10.

Oddly enough, the Rams had a bye in week 2 of 1999. Somebody in the scheduling department really messed up because now nobody has a bye before week 4. It didn't stop St. Louis.

[elysiantraveller]

It happened. Sort of.

The Ravens, 6-10 in 1998, played the Rams, 4-12 in 1998, in the opening week of the 1999 season. I'm sure the game only drew the interest of gamblers and fantasy leaguers, but it would be the next two Super Bowl winners. Not only did they both win it, those two teams are considered to be two of the better SB winning teams. The Rams won 27-10.

Oddly enough, the Rams had a bye in week 2 of 1999. Somebody in the scheduling department really messed up because now nobody has a bye before week 4. It didn't stop St. Louis.

Good stuff there. :ThmbUp:

[PhantomOnTour]

Joe Namath looked pretty good sporting the same outfit at age 70 that he wore at age 25 (fur coat)
Wonder if Aaron Hernandez will look that good wearing the same outfit when he's 70 :)

[rastajenk]

You bring up a question in my mind. Has a highly touted defense ever lost to a highly touted offense in the SB in the last 30 years?? I cannot recall it happening, but it must have.
How about Green Bay over Pitt? Indy over Chicago? It is rare, for sure.

[PhantomOnTour]

How about Green Bay over Pitt? Indy over Chicago? It is rare, for sure.
I think Green Bay had the #1 Defense that year

[tucker6]

How about Green Bay over Pitt? Indy over Chicago? It is rare, for sure.
During the 2005 season leading up to the Indy SB win:

Offensive scoring ranks: Indy #2; Chicago #26

Defensive scoring ranks: Indy #2; Chicago #1

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&statisticCategory=SCORING&conference=ALL&role=OPP&season=2005&seasonType=REG


While you are technically correct that Indy's offense beat Chicago's defense, I would surmise that it would be more true to say that Chicago's offense was unable to deal with Indy's stout defense. Another example of a good defense overwhelming a mediocre offense. That SB also had 3 Indy TO's and 5 Chicago TO's. Not exactly a sharp game by either team.

[headhawg]

That SB also had 3 Indy TO's and 5 Chicago TO's. Not exactly a sharp game by either team.Or just good plays by the #1 and #2 defenses like you might expect.

[tucker6]

Or just good plays by the #1 and #2 defenses like you might expect.
True. When people think of the Indy teams under Peyton, they don't think of good defense, but they did have a couple years where the D put it all together.

[Valuist]

The year the Colts won the Super Bowl (2006 season), their defense was NOT good. 21st overall, and DEAD LAST against the run:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/netYardsPerGame/position/defense/year/2006

They improved in the playoffs as Sanders actually was able to stay on the field. As a Bears fan, I was shocked at the stupidity of their game plan. You had Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson at RB, your QB was Rex Grossman, and the Colts were 32nd against the run. Toss in the fact most of the game was played in a rainstorm. Yet, Ron Turner wanted to get into a shootout with Manning.