This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And San Diego put 10 points on Pitt with Philip Rivers at QB.
I think Az will score plenty...Tenn put 31 pts on Pitt with Kerry Collins at QB..Kerry Collins!
taking into account that some members of the Az coaching staff are former Steelers' coaches, you've got a built-in revenge factor ( Whisenhunt/Grimm were overlooked for the Pitt HC job)..if they get the chance to run up the score, they probably will..
love the Cards getting the pts, whatever the spread is...the O/U is 46.5 and the Steelers are laying wood?! So who exactly will be scoring that many pts?! Az is averaging 31 pts/gm...hmm...something's fishy..Az beat Pitt 21-14 last year, without Boldin, without Warner playing like he is today..They picked off Ben twice, sacked him 4 times ( again, they weren't playing nearly as well as they are today)..and Fitz grabbed 11 balls for 123 yards..
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the over..I think Az scores a boat-load of pts, and Pitt plays catch-up, all day long..and Ben is probably good for a pick-6 at some point..
how Pitt is the favorite is beyond me, their offense is pathetic, the O-line is porous, and they can't run the ball whatsoever..Ben is going to get murdered behind that line..always take the coach with something to prove against his former employers.
I originally thought Az wins 28-17, but I'll go with Az 31-17..take Az getting pts and the over..
gotta be the only person loving on Az....
Actually Whisenhunt signed with AZ before Pitt named their HC but the Grimm situation was kind of ugly. They both know the personnel and Az did beat Pitt last year in Glendale.I think Az will score plenty...Tenn put 31 pts on Pitt with Kerry Collins at QB..Kerry Collins!
taking into account that some members of the Az coaching staff are former Steelers' coaches, you've got a built-in revenge factor ( Whisenhunt/Grimm were overlooked for the Pitt HC job)..if they get the chance to run up the score, they probably will..
love the Cards getting the pts, whatever the spread is...the O/U is 46.5 and the Steelers are laying wood?! So who exactly will be scoring that many pts?! Az is averaging 31 pts/gm...hmm...something's fishy..Az beat Pitt 21-14 last year, without Boldin, without Warner playing like he is today..They picked off Ben twice, sacked him 4 times ( again, they weren't playing nearly as well as they are today)..and Fitz grabbed 11 balls for 123 yards..
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the over..I think Az scores a boat-load of pts, and Pitt plays catch-up, all day long..and Ben is probably good for a pick-6 at some point..
how Pitt is the favorite is beyond me, their offense is pathetic, the O-line is porous, and they can't run the ball whatsoever..Ben is going to get murdered behind that line..always take the coach with something to prove against his former employers.
I originally thought Az wins 28-17, but I'll go with Az 31-17..take Az getting pts and the over..
gotta be the only person loving on Az....
And the Cardinals lost 47-7 to New England.AZ has yet to play a 3-4 defense in the playoffs and like you mentioned Cassell shredded them in the snow. I love all the AZ hype and plan on giving the 7 points with confidence. Steelers roll .And the Cardinals lost 47-7 to New England.
It is foolish to base a bet on one game. During the course of a season pretty much every team lays an egg once in a while. It makes a lot more sense to look at the body of work over a course of a season than focus on one game.
If Tomlin reviews anything about that crap game in the snow, it would be a huge mistake. AZ didn't bother getting off the bus that day.AZ has yet to play a 3-4 defense in the playoffs and like you mentioned Cassell shredded them in the snow. I love all the AZ hype and plan on giving the 7 points with confidence. Steelers roll .
It is foolish to base a bet on one game. During the course of a season pretty much every team lays an egg once in a while. It makes a lot more sense to look at the body of work over a course of a season than focus on one game.
Nice. I'm on James U42.5 (even).
Chargers were knocking on Heavens door twice I believe. Before the Steelers sent them to Hell with a fumble recovery. And Rivers wasted an easy 3 points before the end of the half giving up an ugly int. At the very least thats +6-9 pts.
For argument's sake, I'll play. The Cardinals best attribute on defense has been creating turnovers. Somehow, however, it is now argued that the Steelers turnovers created should not apply? But OK, let's pretend that's true. Does it change Chase's argument if the Chargers scored 16 or even 19 points? For the season, the Chargers averaged 27.4 ppg. (The Cardinals averaged 26.7 ppg in the regular season, 27.5 ppg if you include postseason.) Whether it's 10, 16 or 19 points, that's a pretty good job against the team with the second most points scored in the league (New Orleans #1). The Chargers were held under 20 points in only three other games all season.None of this guarantees anything on Sunday, but based on the body of work, I think it's reasonable to at least give the Steelers a chance to hold the Cardinals offense down below the 30 points they have scored in each playoff game.
I cant see Arizona getting to 30, but 21-24 looks well within their reach.
Nice post. Im sure there is something useful in there. I just haven't figured it out yet.
I have this terrible knack of calling games just before kickoff or before the midcourt jumpball. Unfortunately this doesn't help my betting. And I am well aware of it. Terrible.
Agreed. That was a heckuva lot of info -- I am just not sure what to make of it!Nice post. Im sure there is something useful in there. I just haven't figured it out yet.
I'm confused as you feel this will make for interesting TV but you rate the game 0 stars? I think the fact no one can really get a good pulse on this matchup makes it a very interesting Superbowl.
I'm meant 0 stars for betting. I'm looking forward to this game.
The Whisenhunt/Grimm history may prove to be a factor. I believe it was a factor in last season's game. Where it mattered in last season's game in my opinion was the knowledge Grimm had of the offensive lineman's individual technique, strengths and weaknesses. I agree with you that whatever impact there might be will be on Arizona's defense. I don't think Whisenhunt/Grimm know LeBeau's tendencies or schemes that much better than any other coach. They didn't work with him directly as they were on opposite sides of the ball. I would suspect that division opponents have coaches that know LeBeau's tendencies by now at least as well as Arizona's staff.However, don't you think there may be a difference between a regular season matchup in which each rookie head coach was running the sideline for the fourth time in their career vs. the Super Bowl with the extra week between games in which each coach is in their 36th game?Following up on the Steelers offensive line, the center is different and two other starters are different due to injuries. In addition, it has been a full two seasons of games played since the last matchup.Another way of thinking about it is at what point would this advantage become insignificant? Three years, five years?Mik789fl said:
I think the coaches so-called familiarity with the opponents is overstated. The game is going to determined on the field, not the chalkboard.
Are you saying that spreadsheet calculations and message board posts aren't going to have an impact? How did this happen?
Ugh, I got so burned when I didn't know that the Raiders never changed their audible codes, and Gruden taught them to the Bucs D before the game.
By this point, the Ravens are more familiar with the Steelers than Grimm and Wizzer and we all know how that familiarity worked for them.
A lot of things have changed in the two years since Whiz was the Steelers OC and let's not forget that Mike Tomlin was part of Gruden's coaching staff when the Bucs won that Super Bowl. I am pretty sure the Steelers aren't going to use the same audibles they did back in 2006.videoguy505 said:
I disagree
Why do you say that? Historically, it looks like the underdog wins about 25% of the SBs. Is that worse than the regular season?
Both coaching staffs have had two weeks to prepare and know their opponents well. The game will be won by the team that executes better on Sunday, plain and simple.Mik789fl said:I disagreeceisenhower66 said:
*pounding the podium* Amen!Both coaching staffs have had two weeks to prepare and know their opponents well. The game will be won by the team that executes better on Sunday, plain and simple.Mik789fl said:I disagreeceisenhower66 said:
Because the amount that the moneyline pays on the underdog in the Superbowl is not in accordance with what it should be dictated by the spread. For example, the current line of 6.5/7 should be a moneyline payoff of more like +260 for the underdog. Instead, it's +190/200. Essentially you are not getting as good a payoff as you should based on the spread because people love to bet the underdog moneyline in the Superbowl. In fact, even in previous Superbowls a 7 point spread usually got you more like +230 on the moneyline and that was still a questionable value. In this game it's even worse. When you add in my personal capping factor where none of my numbers pointed to an Arizona win (the closest was them losing by 2), I feel that this year's moneline is a complete sucker bet. If you like Arizona take the points and don't get greedy chasing a foolsgold moneyline.
You do realize the dog has only covered 4 times in SB history without winning outright? The moneyline is the play to make if you like the dog in the SB as they historically win outright or don't cover. The team that you think will win the game is the team to bet on. If you like the fav then give the points, for the dog you play the moneyline. Taking AZ +7 has historically been a bad play. Vegas has adjusted the moneylines and that's why you see the desparity. It's still a good play strictly going by historical odds. Could they buck the trend? Sure, but it's not the shark play. I'm all over the Steelers but if I liked AZ I'd be taking them straight up.Drifter said:
Historical analysis is BS especially when you are looking at such a small sample size as past Superbowls. It's about value.
A small amount of SB's? Four decades worth isn't enough for you? When will you feel there is historical value, after SB 500? Can you honestly argue that historically the moneyline has been the best play to make when taking the dog in the SB? And also that taking the dog with points has been a losing proposition? I know 42 years isn't enough for you to value any trends but apparently Vegas doesn't agree with your logic. Nor do I.
~40 is a very small sample size for statisticial analysis. If you want to look at the amount of times underdogs win outright in say the last 5 years of NFL games, I'd consider that a valid sample size for drawing that sort of conclusion.Vegas doesn't give a crap about the statistics of it. They care about where the money is going and the money always goes on the underdog moneyline - that's what causes it to be valued badly. It has nothing to do with what has occurred in the actual game in past Superbowls.
Vegas certainly does care about historical betting. After being slaughtered numerous times on $$ lines in the last decade they have scaled back the payouts. If you don't think they learn from trends then you have no knowledge of how capping is done. You're right about the public betting the hell out of the dog money lines, they always have and Vegas took a beating as a result. They have learned that it's a good play for the bettor and adjusted to hedge themselves. They don't ignore history like you do. This is the biggest game of the year and the dog has won the game outright numerous times in recent history. Ignore it if you want to but it's a fact.
Historical Betting, yes. Historical scoring, no. That was my point. What happened in recent years means nothing for future games. All Vegas cares about is where the money went in recent years. They want money on both sides of the ball. They aren't hedging their bet based on last year's game.
