CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You wrote that the Pats are favorites to WIN the SB, which means that if they faced any team from the NFC (Pack or Saints) that they will win the game. What the hell does that have to do with easiest PATH to the SB, which you didn't stay. Get a clue, moron. My god you are dumb.. lol Today, NE has the best odds to win the SB. Considering there are 2 games to be played before anyone gets there, obviously that includes the path there... NO is a 4-1 shot in Vegas now, just like NE... Do you think they'll still be a 4-1 shot if they make it there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Exactly who did the Patriots beat this season? Lost to Giants and Steelers. The only playoff team the played and beat were the Broncos. The Packers and the Saints both have quality wins over other playoff teams. Right which is why either team would be favored over NE in a potential SB matchup.. The point is that NE stands by far the best chance of the three of getting there, and thus stands the best chance of winning, since getting there is a prerequisite. I'm not arguing that NE is the better team. All three teams have weak defenses though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 That's disgusting if true If I had to guess, the Jets won't show even the slightest bit of interest unless he becomes a FA. The timing won't let the Colts pull off a trade, so it will all come down to whether or not they decide to pay him his bonus, and until that decision is made by the Colts, there's no reason to even think about Manning. Can't really blame them. The hope just has to be that he does hit FA, and then that all changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 yeah I understand what your saying but Im not sure how the Pats can have a better statistical chance than the Packers or the red hot Saints that the last quarter of the season were totally unstoppable Because NO and GB will likely to have to play one another, and only 1 of those teams can advance. If the saints or gb gets upset this weekend, that huge impediment will be removed, and the survivor would have the best odds heading into championship weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 My god you are dumb.. lol Today, NE has the best odds to win the SB. Considering there are 2 games to be played before anyone gets there, obviously that includes the path there... NO is a 4-1 shot in Vegas now, just like NE... Do you think they'll still be a 4-1 shot if they make it there? Don't be such a jackass. The Packers have the best odds to win the SB by Vegas, right? The Saints have the same odds to win as do the Pats, right? So, if the Saints and Pack have equal or better odds than the Pats to win the SB, the Pats wouldn't be the odds on favorite to win it all, right? That is, except for the Pats-cock sucking universe that is FO. The site is notorious as being run by Chowd, Steeler & Eagle homers. Shatz, sh*tz or whatever his name is that runs the site has a weekly Podcast appearance for his Chowd buddy Bill Simmons. It's like a Boston sausage fest each week. Again, get a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Don't be such a jackass. The Packers have the best odds to win the SB by Vegas, right? The Saints have the same odds to win as do the Pats, right? So, if the Saints and Pack have equal or better odds than the Pats to win the SB, the Pats wouldn't be the odds on favorite to win it all, right? That is, except for the Pats-cock sucking universe that is FO. The site is notorious as being run by Chowd, Steeler & Eagle homers. Shatz, sh*tz or whatever his name is that runs the site has a weekly Podcast appearance for his Chowd buddy Bill Simmons. It's like a Boston sausage fest each week. Again, get a clue. You obviously are too thick to understand something which is pretty basic. I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Because NO and GB will likely to have to play one another, and only 1 of those teams can advance. If the saints or gb gets upset this weekend, that huge impediment will be removed, and the survivor would have the best odds heading into championship weekend Chan Im not talking about the road there Im talking head to head ..... if the Pats play GB I would Favor GB if the Pats play NO I would favor NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 They play that game 10 times NE wins 9 of them.. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's more because the luster had completely worn off the Pats by that point, and they were barely making it through their playoff matchups despite some pretty easy opponents. It took them way too long to put away a Chargers team that has never been able to play in the postseason and had major injuries to their top 3 offensive players. I agree with your overall premise, I'm just not sure that's the greatest of examples, because Brady and that offense just weren't playing at that same level anymore before they ever even got to the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Because NO and GB will likely to have to play one another, and only 1 of those teams can advance. If the saints or gb gets upset this weekend, that huge impediment will be removed, and the survivor would have the best odds heading into championship weekend NE's path - at home for the entire playoffs. They play a sh*tty 8-8 team this week. Then they play a sh*tty road team in Balt or a Houston team lead by a 3rd string rookie QB. Cleary they are favorites in the AFC. The Pack although having homefield advantage as well have the Giants (who took them to the wire) and either the Saints or 13-3 San Fran on tap. A little tougher road to the playoffs. Once the SB starts, the odds change. Why is this difficult to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 You obviously are too thick to understand something which is pretty basic. I give up. It is basic, just like it's basic that you're too much of an egotistical maniac to admit when you're wrong. The PATH to the SB is completely different than WINNING the SB. Everyone and their mother (except Chowd loving FO) has the Pack as favorites to win the SB. The Saints have equal or better odds to WIN the SB than the Pats. The 2 teams with the best odds to GET to the SB in the NFC are the Saints and Pack. So, again, by everyone (except Chowd loving FO), then are favored over ANY AFC team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Chan Im not talking about the road there Im talking head to head ..... if the Pats play GB I would Favor GB if the Pats play NO I would favor NO Yes. conceded. I agree.. But I'm talking about the odds today, and as of today, Gb OR New Oreleans can make the SB, not both. The existence of the other lowers both teams cumulative odds. Also, SF is probably the 4th best team standing, NO to get to the SB will have to beat the 4th best team and the best team on the road, that's just to get there. NE will have to beat the worst team left, and the 5th best team, both at home. GB will have to beat the 6th best team and the 2nd best team, at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 It is basic, just like it's basic that you're too much of an egotistical maniac to admit when you're wrong. That'd be you The PATH to the SB is completely different than WINNING the SB. Everyone and their mother (except Chowd loving FO) has the Pack as favorites to win the SB. The Saints have equal or better odds to WIN the SB than the Pats. The 2 teams with the best odds to GET to the SB in the NFC are the Saints and Pack. So, again, by everyone (except Chowd loving FO), then are favored over ANY AFC team. OMG, how can a team WIN a SB without getting there. Are you just trolling me? Surely you can't be this slow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yes. conceded. I agree.. But I'm talking about the odds today, and as of today, Gb OR New Oreleans can make the SB, not both. The existence of the other lowers both teams cumulative odds. Also, SF is probably the 4th best team standing, NO to get to the SB will have to beat the 4th best team and the best team on the road, that's just to get there. NE will have to beat the worst team left, and the 5th best team, both at home. GB will have to beat the 6th best team and the 2nd best team, at home. Yes, everyone in the world knows that the Pats have the EASIEST path to the SB. The same thing happened to the Bills in the 4 SB runs. The Bills made the SB all those years because they consistently faced weaker playoff opponents than in the NFC. Then the NFC teams trounced them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 NE's path - at home for the entire playoffs. They play a sh*tty 8-8 team this week. Then they play a sh*tty road team in Balt or a Houston team lead by a 3rd string rookie QB. Cleary they are favorites in the AFC. The Pack although having homefield advantage as well have the Giants (who took them to the wire) and either the Saints or 13-3 San Fran on tap. A little tougher road to the playoffs. Once the SB starts, the odds change. Why is this difficult to grasp? Fairly simple concept, i thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yes. conceded. I agree.. But I'm talking about the odds today, and as of today, Gb OR New Oreleans can make the SB, not both. The existence of the other lowers both teams cumulative odds. Also, SF is probably the 4th best team standing, NO to get to the SB will have to beat the 4th best team and the best team on the road, that's just to get there. NE will have to beat the worst team left, and the 5th best team, both at home. GB will have to beat the 6th best team and the 2nd best team, at home. Yes the road TO the SB I agree, all we have to do here is separate that, from the actual game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think CTM's whole point is that, given the road to the Super Bowl for the 8 remaining teams, the Patriots have the best odds of any team right now to make it there. On the entire basis that you have to be "in it to win it", that would essentially also give the Patriots the best odds of actually winning the Super Bowl, when looking at it from the perspective of still sitting at the divisional round. Even if you give both the Packers and Saints odds over the Pats if they were to face them in the Super Bowl, they still have worse odds to make it there (because of each other), which offsets those head-to-head odds. That can very possibly change once this week's games are over if either GB or NO get upset, and very likely will change by the time the championship round is over, assuming one of those two are the NFC Champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 OMG, how can a team WIN a SB without getting there. Are you just trolling me? Surely you can't be this slow Jeesh, you're dense. If either Teams A or B are favored over Team C, how can Team C be FAVORED to win the SB? The Path makes a difference if a less favored team faces the Pats in the SB. Not the more favored team. Again, only Chowd sucking FO has the Pats favored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Oh you mean the year Reggie Wayne had 111 Catches and 1350 yards receiving ? And peirre garcon had 67 Catches ? and Austin Collie Had 10 TD's ? The same guys that ate us up alive in the AFCCG ? He lost Dallas Clark that year and I think Joseph Addai and had a terrible stretch of like 10 INTs in 4 games towards the end of the year. Even that year the colts had better talent at WR than the Jets and a hell of alot better at protecting the QB and most importantly picking up the blitz Austin Collie went on IR that year. And other than Wayne, all of those guys are JAG's. Remember Brandon Stokely? Under Manning, he was the 2nd coming of Ed McCaffrey. When he went to Denver he was awful. Manning made the Colts' backup TE look like Shockey in his prime. You've gotta be kidding me with this stuff Smash. I thought you knew football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Peyton would play here. He could win a Super Bowl with this defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yes, everyone in the world knows that the Pats have the EASIEST path to the SB. The same thing happened to the Bills in the 4 SB runs. The Bills made the SB all those years because they consistently faced weaker playoff opponents than in the NFC. Then the NFC teams trounced them. The point is, even if you give the NFC odds over the AFC in the Super Bowl, that's not enough to offset the odds those NFC teams have to deal with to get there. If you want to argue that the NFC Super Bowl representative has better odds than the Pats that's one thing, but that's comparing apples to oranges, as you're not taking into account the odds of getting there in both cases. The Packers and Saints odds of winning a Super Bowl both take a serious hit on the basis of potentially having to face each other and therefore, a serious obstacle in getting there, where the Patriots face no such thing. I doubt the Pats would be favored over either of those teams head to head, but they need to make it there first, which won't be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I think CTM's whole point is that, given the road to the Super Bowl for the 8 remaining teams, the Patriots have the best odds of any team right now to make it there. On the entire basis that you have to be "in it to win it", that would essentially also give the Patriots the best odds of actually winning the Super Bowl, when looking at it from the perspective of still sitting at the divisional round. Even if you give both the Packers and Saints odds over the Pats if they were to face them in the Super Bowl, they still have worse odds to make it there (because of each other), which offsets those head-to-head odds. That can very possibly change once this week's games are over if either GB or NO get upset, and very likely will change by the time the championship round is over, assuming one of those two are the NFC Champions. If this is all the case, why does all of Vegas have the Packers favored to win the SB while the Chowd-sucking FO have the Pats? I would accept CTM's argument if the Pats were FAVORED over the Saints, but they're not. Meaning, the Packers have the harder road to the SB and, thus, they could lose and not get there while the Pats have the cakewalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Yes the road TO the SB I agree, all we have to do here is separate that, from the actual game. Right, but I'm talking about the odds as they stand today. On monday, the odds will look completely different pending the outcome of this weeks games. Right now, a bet at NE at 4-1, which can be hedged* come SB is far smarter then betting GB at 2-1 *ie. I bet $100 on pats at 4-1, with an $400 payout. When the SB comes, say against GB, the pack will likely be in the -130 range. I can then place a a $130 bet on GB, and have $270 in potential winnings with absolutely no risk.. Or I could bet $390 on GB, and have $300 in potential winnings against the risk of winning $10.. Or I can place a $260 bet on GB, and win $140 if the Pats win, and $200 if GB wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The point is, even if you give the NFC odds over the AFC in the Super Bowl, that's not enough to offset the odds those NFC teams have to deal with to get there. If you want to argue that the NFC Super Bowl representative has better odds than the Pats that's one thing, but that's comparing apples to oranges, as you're not taking into account the odds of getting there in both cases. The Packers and Saints odds of winning a Super Bowl both take a serious hit on the basis of potentially having to face each other and therefore, a serious obstacle in getting there, where the Patriots face no such thing. I doubt the Pats would be favored over either of those teams head to head, but they need to make it there first, which won't be easy. Exactly. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The point is, even if you give the NFC odds over the AFC in the Super Bowl, that's not enough to offset the odds those NFC teams have to deal with to get there. If you want to argue that the NFC Super Bowl representative has better odds than the Pats that's one thing, but that's comparing apples to oranges, as you're not taking into account the odds of getting there in both cases. The Packers and Saints odds of winning a Super Bowl both take a serious hit on the basis of potentially having to face each other and therefore, a serious obstacle in getting there, where the Patriots face no such thing. I doubt the Pats would be favored over either of those teams head to head, but they need to make it there first, which won't be easy. The Packers have the best odds to win SB. Saints and Pats have equal odds. Only Chowd-sucking FO says different. It's the extreme minority view that supports the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Exactly. Thank you Oh, STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Austin Collie went on IR that year. And other than Wayne, all of those guys are JAG's. Remember Brandon Stokely? Under Manning, he was the 2nd coming of Ed McCaffrey. When he went to Denver he was awful. Manning made the Colts' backup TE look like Shockey in his prime. You've gotta be kidding me with this stuff Smash. I thought you knew football. Just a matter of opinion 80 ...who on the Jets is even remotely close to Reggie Wayne ? When I mentioned Collie and Garcon they ate our number 1 defense alive in the first AFCCG game , pretty good for a couple of Jags. Most of the time in big games the top players get covered doubled and taken out of the game and its up to the so called JAGS to step up and win it. Its called being a team something Manning would be smart enough to know he would not have with this offense as it currently stands. if you think the Jets can sign Manning and fix the other issues on this team all while staying under the cap then more power to ya 80 . We really need to just step away from the hypothetical Manning crap since its not going to happen anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 If this is all the case, why does all of Vegas have the Packers favored to win the SB while the Chowd-sucking FO have the Pats? because as I said, Vegas has to also consider public sentiment. They take advantage of the publlc's preconceived notions regularly. GB won last years SB, has the best QB in football and started the year 13-0. They are overrated by the casual bettor and have a soft line. There's people, known as sharps, who make a very good living taking advantage of this very thing every single weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Just a matter of opinion 80 ...who on the Jets is even remotely close to Reggie Wayne ? How about Santonio? I'd say he's more talented than Wayne, and he's in his prime. Few receivers could have made that game-winning Super Bowl catch against Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Right, but I'm talking about the odds as they stand today. On monday, the odds will look completely different pending the outcome of this weeks games. Right now, a bet at NE at 4-1, which can be hedged* come SB is far smarter then betting GB at 2-1 *ie. I bet $100 on pats at 4-1, with an $400 payout. When the SB comes, say against GB, the pack will likely be in the -130 range. I can then place a a $130 bet on GB, and have $270 in potential winnings with absolutely no risk.. Or I could bet $390 on GB, and have $300 in potential winnings against the risk of winning $10.. Or I can place a $260 bet on GB, and win $140 if the Pats win, and $200 if GB wins I agree with you on that Chan as the odds stand today the Pats have the better chance to get to the SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashmouth Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 How about Santonio? I'd say he's more talented than Wayne, and he's in his prime. OH NO NO NO you didnt just compare Asstonio to another possible HOF like CTM tried to compare him to Harrison OMG please say you didnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 A healthy Peyton would give the Jets a serious chance to make the SB. But the Jets will lose in a shootout in the AFCCG because Eric Smith will fall down and give up the game losing TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 OH NO NO NO you didnt just compare Asstonio to another possible HOF like CTM tried to compare him to Harrison OMG please say you didnt Harrison >>>>> Holmes > Wayne I doubt Wayne makes the HOF. This is all moot anyways. The job of the QB is to make his receivers better, not the other way around. Holmes was productive in Pittsburgh with Big Ben, but hasn't been here. Wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Jeesh, you're dense. If either Teams A or B are favored over Team C, how can Team C be FAVORED to win the SB? The Path makes a difference if a less favored team faces the Pats in the SB. Not the more favored team. Again, only Chowd sucking FO has the Pats favored. The point is they wouldn't be favorites when the Super Bowl actually gets here, but since teams A and B both have significantly worse odds of getting there, that makes all of the difference. Think of it this way (I'll completely admit I'm making up numbers here, but just making the point). Let's just look at what the odds for each team would potentially be, assuming the favored teams all win their games. If you say the Pats have 90% chance of winning this week, 80% chance next week and only 40% chance in the Super Bowl, right now you're saying they have a 28.8% chance of winning the Super Bowl from where we currently stand. That will of course change after this week's games, because at the very least you're removing that first set of odds. Now say the Packers and Saints both have 70% chance of winning this week, 50% next week and whichever one wins the championship game has a 60% chance in the Super Bowl. Each team has a 21% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Now granted, the odds of the Super Bowl's NFC team of winning (be it GB or NO) are higher, but for one of those specific teams to win is not, which is entirely offset by the difficulty they have in actually getting there. Again these numbers are completely made up and you could argue that maybe the difference in the difficulty of their respective paths to the Super Bowl isn't this significant and so not enough to make the difference, but the point is that it is certainly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The Packers have the best odds to win SB. Saints and Pats have equal odds. Only Chowd-sucking FO says different. It's the extreme minority view that supports the Pats. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Pats will win the Super Bowl, and I don't think any source, FO included, will say they are favorites once that game comes around, barring a Giants or 49ers appearance. That said, the fact that I think it is reasonable to say that they are far more likely to be in that game than any other single team is enough to offset the fact that they're less likely to win that game once there. Packers and NO are a riskier bet to make right now simply because there's a better chance (compared to the Pats) they never even get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Oh, STFU Stevie , you're out of your element!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.