Super Bowl post mortem (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ummmm, was it not Reggie Wayne who ran a bad route? and made a horrible attempt at the ball?

I think Reggie knew he screwed up, you can see as soon as he seen Porter break for the pass.

I'm not sure I get this. Has Manning or Wayne conceded there was a bad route? Where does this come from?Manning described it as a bread and butter play, one they had run a thousand times during the season.

Porter outstudied and out-thunk Manning there, that's what happened.

He out-thunk him so much, that it tangled Waynes feet....I disagree with your opinion.Did u see the replay, if you can tell me Wayne gave a 110% on the route, I will have to check to see if I really watched the right game on Sunday!

I just had this conversation with somebody.I am finally - after 3 goods nights of partying, plus today - going to re-watch the game on DVD.

To me, we're talking Reggie Wayne and Peyton Manning running a route they said they ran a thousand times over the season, two all-pros &/or potential HOF's running a bread`n`butter play. I recall Porter breaking in front of Wayne, but will report back.

Edit:

Ok, here it is, I don't see it.

Look at the end. Porter reads the play perfectly and jumps the route early.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh5D_TMGwjk

 

[zed2283]

I just watched the replay of the game on NFL Replay and have changed my mind about the INT. Wayne ran this exact same route just a few plays earlier (with D.Clark lined up at TE instead of Collie motioning to the slot), and ran it in the exact same way. They've got two replays of the INT that give a good view of what happened. There's one replay from behind Manning that seems to show that on the pick he threw the ball early and/or off target (again, I'm comparing it to the earlier play). The other replay is from behind Porter and basically shows what a great jump he got on the route. By the time Wayne turned, Porter was already just about even with him, and that's what caused Wayne to hesitate. But it was too late at that point anyway.

 

[aiverson]

How bad did Las Vegas and offshores screw up? Bad. Big time. As a Colts fan, I didn't want to wager against them, but there's no way I could justify laying 4 1/2 or more (up to 5 1/2 at one point). They lined the game as if it was in Indianapolis, not on a neutral field. Which brings to mind the next question: was it really a neutral field? According to a couple friends I have who were in Miami for several days and at the game, the mood down there was basically about 5 to 1 with Saint backers/rooters outnumbering Colts fans.

You are approaching "wagering" totally wrong. You are a Colts fan who thought the spread was too high. That should have told you something. Books didn't line the game "as if it was in Indianapolis", they lined the game to get the action they desired. Books made out because most of the bets/money came in on the Colts. I'm sure Books would have rather the Colts won but not covered, so they didn't have to pay out the Saints ML bets. Still, they made out pretty nicely.I use a computer program to aid in wagering, and it thought the wrong team was favored, and believed the Saints would win outright. But just because I wager on the Saints and agreed with my computer (and you) that the Colts would not cover the spread, I did not think that the books "screwed up" when putting out their number. They did exactly what they wanted to do and made money. You need to learn more about why they set lines like they do. It doesn't always make rational sense, especially in hindsight. But if it gets the right result for the books, they did their job properly.