Superbowl Gamblers (Anonymous) Thread

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 3:

 

A look into Scenario 1

 

A 50/50 split between playoffs and regular season, w/ a slight lean towards road games, especially of late

 

Season Home Games: 20%

Season Road Games: 30% (of which 15 % is L3 Road)

Playoffs: 50%

 

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

 

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

 

(Also, these numbers are obviously percentages of stats from multiple games, so I rounded to the nearest decimal. Which is why you may see the Colts have an advantage by 0 yards. But the yardage really is 0.04 yards, and it rounds to 0. So that is essentially no advantage, but just explaining why it may show up.)

 

Offensive Categories

 

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 30 vs. Opp Avg 21.1, Indianapolis Colts: 25.1 vs. Opp Avg 18.3

Advantage: Bears by 2.1

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.6 vs. Opp Avg 17.7, Indianapolis Colts: 23.9 vs. Opp Avg 17.7

Advantage: Colts by 4.3

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 34.5 vs. Opp Avg 36.8, Indianapolis Colts: 52.3 vs. Opp Avg 36.8

Advantage: Colts by 17.9

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.5, Indianapolis Colts: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4

Advantage: Colts by 0.5

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 52.2 vs. Opp Avg 59.2, Indianapolis Colts: 63.8 vs. Opp Avg 59.4

Advantage: Colts by 11.4

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.2 vs. Opp Avg 11.7, Indianapolis Colts: 11.2 vs. Opp Avg 11.5

Advantage: Bears by 0.8

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.9 vs. Opp Avg 0.9, Indianapolis Colts: 1.3 vs. Opp Avg 1.2

Advantage: Bears by 0.2

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.7

Advantage: Colts by 0.3

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 12.2 vs. Opp Avg 16.1, Indianapolis Colts: 7.7 vs. Opp Avg 15.6

Advantage: Colts by 4

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 39.7 vs. Opp Avg 51.1, Indianapolis Colts: 37.9 vs. Opp Avg 48

Advantage: Bears by 1.4

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 33.2 vs. Opp Avg 29.7, Indianapolis Colts: 31.6 vs. Opp Avg 29.6

Advantage: Bears by 1.5

 

Offensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 6 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards

Bears: 5 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

 

Defensive Categories

 

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 18.4 vs. Opp Avg 21.7, Indianapolis Colts: 20.2 vs. Opp Avg 21.4

Advantage: Bears by 2.1

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 17.1 vs. Opp Avg 19.2, Indianapolis Colts: 16.4 vs. Opp Avg 18.6

Advantage: Colts by 0

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 33.1 vs. Opp Avg 38.4, Indianapolis Colts: 34.6 vs. Opp Avg 39.3

Advantage: Bears by 0.6

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 3.9, Indianapolis Colts: 5 vs. Opp Avg 4.1

Advantage: Bears by 0.7

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 56.6 vs. Opp Avg 59.2, Indianapolis Colts: 62.2 vs. Opp Avg 61

Advantage: Bears by 3.8

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 10.8 vs. Opp Avg 11.6, Indianapolis Colts: 9.4 vs. Opp Avg 11.2

Advantage: Colts by 1

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1.1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.9

Advantage: Colts by 0.3

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.4 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.7 vs. Opp Avg 0.7

Advantage: Bears by 0.6

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 21.2 vs. Opp Avg 15.5, Indianapolis Colts: 11.2 vs. Opp Avg 12.1

Advantage: Bears by 6.5

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 52.3 vs. Opp Avg 46.8, Indianapolis Colts: 38.1 vs. Opp Avg 49.6

Advantage: Colts by 17

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 28.3 vs. Opp Avg 30.4, Indianapolis Colts: 28.4 vs. Opp Avg 30.7

Advantage: Colts by 0.2

 

Defensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 5 - First Downs/Game, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

Bears: 6 - PPG Allowed, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 4:

 

A look into Scenario 2

 

Not as much emphasis on the playoffs as scenario 1, but still over double that of a regular season game. More of a focus on road games over the season

 

Season Home Games: 20%

Season Road Games: 45% (of which 17 % is L3 Road)

Playoffs: 35%

 

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

 

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

 

Offensive Categories

 

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 28.8 vs. Opp Avg 21.2, Indianapolis Colts: 24.7 vs. Opp Avg 19

Advantage: Bears by 1.8

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.4 vs. Opp Avg 18, Indianapolis Colts: 23.5 vs. Opp Avg 18

Advantage: Colts by 4.1

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 35.6 vs. Opp Avg 37.4, Indianapolis Colts: 54 vs. Opp Avg 37.6

Advantage: Colts by 18.2

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.4, Indianapolis Colts: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 4

Advantage: Colts by 0.3

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 52.7 vs. Opp Avg 59.5, Indianapolis Colts: 63.9 vs. Opp Avg 59.7

Advantage: Colts by 11

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.1 vs. Opp Avg 11.7, Indianapolis Colts: 11.6 vs. Opp Avg 11.4

Advantage: Bears by 0.3

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1 vs. Opp Avg 0.9, Indianapolis Colts: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1.1

Advantage: Colts by 0

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.3 vs. Opp Avg 0.7

Advantage: Colts by 0.2

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 11 vs. Opp Avg 15.7, Indianapolis Colts: 7.2 vs. Opp Avg 14.7

Advantage: Colts by 2.8

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 45 vs. Opp Avg 51.3, Indianapolis Colts: 40.7 vs. Opp Avg 48.8

Advantage: Colts by 1.8

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 32.4 vs. Opp Avg 29.8, Indianapolis Colts: 30.7 vs. Opp Avg 29.8

Advantage: Bears by 1.7

 

Offensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 8 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Interceptions/Game, Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards, Penalty Yards

Bears: 3 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Time of Possession (min)

 

Defensive Categories

 

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 17.9 vs. Opp Avg 21.3, Indianapolis Colts: 21.9 vs. Opp Avg 21.3

Advantage: Bears by 3.9

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 17.3 vs. Opp Avg 19.1, Indianapolis Colts: 18 vs. Opp Avg 18.4

Advantage: Bears by 1.3

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 32.2 vs. Opp Avg 38, Indianapolis Colts: 39 vs. Opp Avg 38.9

Advantage: Bears by 5.9

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 3.9, Indianapolis Colts: 5.2 vs. Opp Avg 4.2

Advantage: Bears by 1

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 57.3 vs. Opp Avg 59, Indianapolis Colts: 62.8 vs. Opp Avg 60.7

Advantage: Bears by 3.8

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 10.7 vs. Opp Avg 11.4, Indianapolis Colts: 9.8 vs. Opp Avg 11.2

Advantage: Colts by 0.6

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.2 vs. Opp Avg 0.9

Advantage: Colts by 0.2

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.4 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 0.7 vs. Opp Avg 0.7

Advantage: Bears by 0.6

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 19.5 vs. Opp Avg 15.9, Indianapolis Colts: 9.7 vs. Opp Avg 12.3

Advantage: Bears by 6.2

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 59 vs. Opp Avg 48.8, Indianapolis Colts: 38.8 vs. Opp Avg 49.3

Advantage: Colts by 20.8

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 28.8 vs. Opp Avg 30.4, Indianapolis Colts: 29.3 vs. Opp Avg 30.5

Advantage: Bears by 0.4

 

Defensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 3 - YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards

Bears: 8 - PPG Allowed, First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards, Time of Possession (min)

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 5:

 

A look into Scenario 3

 

Extremely playoff heavy, and only slight amounts of regular season performance, particularly home games

 

Season Home Games: 5%

Season Road Games: 10% (of which 5% is L3 Road)

Playoffs: 85%

 

Remember, each team's production is listed and then compared to their opposition average. For offensive categories, the opposition average "allowed" is shown. Therefore, for most offensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed better than the opponent average - it shows you are performing better than average on offense.

 

For defensive categories, the opposition average "gained" is shown. Therefore, for most defensive categories (except turnovers, sacks and penalties), it is better to have performed lower than the opponent average (holding them to fewer PPG, ypr, ypc...) - it shows you are performing better than average on defense.

 

Offensive Categories

 

PPG Scored: Chicago Bears: 32.1 vs. Opp Avg 20.8, Indianapolis Colts: 25.2 vs. Opp Avg 16.5

Advantage: Bears by 2.5

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 19.5 vs. Opp Avg 17.1, Indianapolis Colts: 24.6 vs. Opp Avg 17

Advantage: Colts by 5.2

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 31.8 vs. Opp Avg 35.5, Indianapolis Colts: 49.2 vs. Opp Avg 34.8

Advantage: Colts by 18.2

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4 vs. Opp Avg 4.7, Indianapolis Colts: 3.9 vs. Opp Avg 3.9

Advantage: Colts by 0.8

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 50.6 vs. Opp Avg 58.4, Indianapolis Colts: 63.2 vs. Opp Avg 58.4

Advantage: Colts by 12.5

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 12.3 vs. Opp Avg 11.8, Indianapolis Colts: 10.4 vs. Opp Avg 11.6

Advantage: Bears by 1.7

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8, Indianapolis Colts: 1.8 vs. Opp Avg 1.3

Advantage: Bears by 0.7

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 0.5 vs. Opp Avg 0.7, Indianapolis Colts: 0.1 vs. Opp Avg 0.8

Advantage: Colts by 0.5

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 14.5 vs. Opp Avg 17, Indianapolis Colts: 10 vs. Opp Avg 17.6

Advantage: Colts by 5.1

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 27.6 vs. Opp Avg 50.9, Indianapolis Colts: 32.7 vs. Opp Avg 46.6

Advantage: Bears by 9.4

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 34.7 vs. Opp Avg 29.3, Indianapolis Colts: 33.2 vs. Opp Avg 28.9

Advantage: Bears by 1.1

 

Offensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 6 - First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards

Bears: 5 - PPG Scored, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

 

Defensive Categories

 

PPG Allowed: Chicago Bears: 18.8 vs. Opp Avg 22.9, Indianapolis Colts: 17.4 vs. Opp Avg 22

Advantage: Colts by 0.6

 

First Downs/Game: Chicago Bears: 16.7 vs. Opp Avg 19.8, Indianapolis Colts: 13.6 vs. Opp Avg 19

Advantage: Colts by 2.3

 

3rd Down (%): Chicago Bears: 35 vs. Opp Avg 40, Indianapolis Colts: 26.1 vs. Opp Avg 40.8

Advantage: Colts by 9.8

 

YPRush: Chicago Bears: 4.2 vs. Opp Avg 3.8, Indianapolis Colts: 4.1 vs. Opp Avg 4

Advantage: Colts by 0.2

 

Pass Comp (%): Chicago Bears: 55.5 vs. Opp Avg 60.4, Indianapolis Colts: 61.3 vs. Opp Avg 61.7

Advantage: Bears by 4.6

 

YPCatch: Chicago Bears: 11 vs. Opp Avg 11.9, Indianapolis Colts: 9 vs. Opp Avg 11.2

Advantage: Colts by 1.3

 

Interceptions/Game: Chicago Bears: 1 vs. Opp Avg 1.1, Indianapolis Colts: 1.6 vs. Opp Avg 0.8

Advantage: Colts by 0.8

 

Fumbles/Game: Chicago Bears: 1.5 vs. Opp Avg 0.7, Indianapolis Colts: 0.9 vs. Opp Avg 0.8

Advantage: Bears by 0.6

 

Sack Yards: Chicago Bears: 24.2 vs. Opp Avg 14.2, Indianapolis Colts: 13.3 vs. Opp Avg 11.4

Advantage: Bears by 8.1

 

Penalty Yards: Chicago Bears: 38 vs. Opp Avg 42.5, Indianapolis Colts: 38.3 vs. Opp Avg 49.8

Advantage: Colts by 7

 

Time of Possession (min): Chicago Bears: 27.5 vs. Opp Avg 30.7, Indianapolis Colts: 26.7 vs. Opp Avg 31.4

Advantage: Colts by 1.3

 

Defensive Conclusion

 

Colts: 8 - PPG Allowed, First Downs/Game, 3rd Down (%), YPRush, YPCatch, Interceptions/Game, Penalty Yards, Time of Possession (min)

Bears: 3 - Pass Comp (%), Fumbles/Game, Sack Yards

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 6:

 

Passer Ratings (Playoffs & Reg Season)

 

Another key to Super Bowl performance is the play of your QB. It is usually essential to have an average if not solid performance from your QB to win this game. Peyton this season has been pretty remarkable.

 

To those who don't appreciate QB rating, it really is more of a useful tool than you may think. Using 5 inputs (attempts, completions, yards, TDs, Ints) it calculates Comp %, Yards/Attempt, TD% and Int%, and then weights them and combines them into one easy to use and compare number. Most everything you would want to know about the guy in one stat.

 

And the reason it is so important I will present to you here:

 

I was hoping to find this gathered somewhere online already. As I couldn't find it, I ran all the calculations myself, so here it is:

 

Of the 40 Super Bowl winners, 38 of winning teams had a higher QB rating in the Super Bowl than their opponent's QB rating! That is 95%. The only exceptions were actually last year, and in 1998.

 

 

																  Rating	Game	Date					Result									Winner	LoserXL	Feb. 5, 2006	Pittsburgh 21, Seattle 10	22.61	67.81XXXIX	Feb. 6, 2005	New England 24, Philadelphia 21	110.1	75.36XXXVIII	Feb. 1, 2004	New England 32, Carolina 29	113.5	100.5XXXVII	Jan. 26, 2003	Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21	79.9	48.86XXXVI	Feb. 3, 2002	New England 20, St. Louis 17	86.18	78.31XXXV	Jan. 28, 2001	Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7	80.91	7.05XXXIV	Jan. 30, 2000	St. Louis 23, Tennessee 16	99.67	77.8XXXIII	Jan. 31, 1999	Denver 34, Atlanta 19					99.2	75.66XXXII	Jan. 25, 1998	Denver 31, Green Bay 24	51.89	90.97XXXI	Jan. 26, 1997	Green Bay 35, New England 21	107.9	46.61XXX	Jan. 28, 1996	Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17	108.7	51.31XXIX	Jan. 29, 1995	San Francisco 49, San Diego 26	134.8	56.07XXVIII	Jan. 30, 1994	Dallas 30, Buffalo 13					77.23	67.08XXVII	Jan. 31, 1993	Dallas 52, Buffalo 17					140.6	60.41XXVI	Jan. 26, 1992	Washington 37, Buffalo 24	91.98	44.82XXV	Jan. 27, 1991	N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19	93.48	81.82XXIV	Jan. 28, 1990	San Francisco 55, Denver 10	147.5	19.31XXIII	Jan. 22, 1989	San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16	115.1	46.08XXII	Jan. 31, 1988	Washington 42, Denver 10	127.8	36.84XXI	Jan. 25, 1987	N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20	150.9	83.61XX	Jan. 26, 1986	Chicago 46, New England 10	104.1	57.22XIX	Jan. 20, 1985	San Francisco 38, Miami 16	127.2	66.91XVIII	Jan. 22, 1984	L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9	97.41	45.29XVII	Jan. 30, 1983	Washington 27, Miami 17	75.09	50XVI	Jan. 24, 1982	San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21	100	95.22XV	Jan. 25, 1981	Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10	145	49.34XIV	Jan. 20, 1980	Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19	101.8	70.75XIII	Jan. 21, 1979	Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31	119.1	100.4XII	Jan. 15, 1978	Dallas 27, Denver 10					102.5	0XI	Jan.   9, 1977	Oakland 32, Minnesota 14	111.7	52.67X	Jan. 18, 1976	Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17	122.4	77.77IX	Jan. 12, 1975	Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6	108	14.1VIII	Jan. 13, 1974	Miami 24, Minnesota 7					110.1	67.85VII	Jan. 14, 1973	Miami 14, Washington 7	88.44	19.64VI	Jan. 16, 1972	Dallas 24, Miami 3					115.8	51.72V	Jan. 17, 1971	Baltimore 16, Dallas 13	54.02	34.13IV	Jan. 11, 1970	Kansas City 23, Minnesota 7	90.8	52.58III	Jan. 12, 1969	N.Y. Jets 16, Baltimore 7	83.33	35.41II	Jan. 14, 1968	Green Bay 33, Oakland 14	96.18	71.69I	Jan. 15, 1967	Green Bay 35, Kansas City 10	116.2	80.94

 

 

 

 

QB performance (rating) is huge in the SB, and has an extreme correlation to SB success. So the question is, which QB do you think will have a better rating in the SB? Well, past success does not guarantee future success, but here are the numbers from the regular season.

 

Manning

 

When the Colts are losing, his rating of 106.4 is higher than when they are tied or when they have the lead.

In the 2nd half, his rating of 102.7 is higher than his 1st half rating.

On third down, his rating of 119.1 is better than on first or second down.

And his best rating of all is on 3rd and long (3rd and 8-10 yds), when his rating is 148.5.

 

Grossman on the other hand:

 

When the Bears are losing, his rating of 49.6 is much lower than when they are tied, or when they have the lead (102.9)

In the 2nd half, his rating of 67.2 is lower than his 1st half rating.

On 3rd down, his rating of 66.4 is lower than on first or second down.

And his WORST situational rating is on 3rd and long (3rd and 8-10 yds), when his rating is 47.3.

 

So lets look at how these guys did away from home:

 

Petyon vs. Rex

 

On the road: 93 vs. 67

On grass: 100.2 vs. 73.2

Peyton against NFC vs. Rex against AFC: 93.9 vs. 55.0

In wins: 106.7 vs. 86.8

In losses: 84.3 vs. 19.3

 

So what can we conclude about regular season performance? Well, the Rex was good when he was at home, when his team had the lead, and he was in manageable down & distances. Whether it's when his team is losing, when it is 3rd down, or when it is in the 2nd half, Rex just wasn't that good.

 

Peyton on the other hand, was incredible on 3rd downs, when his team was losing, or in the 2nd half. All this talk about the Colts on grass - Peyton had a 100 rating on grass, and even in losses, his rating still was an 84.

 

Now, moving onto the playoffs:

 

Peyton's 3 games: 71.9 vs KC, 39.6 @ Bal, 79.1 vs NE

Rex's 2 games: 76.9 vs. Sea, 73.2 vs NO

 

It is hard to really compare these to one another. For instance, the 39.6 jumps out at you for Peyton. We know that was a defensive, turnover filled FG battle, it isn't really surprising his numbers were bad. Even less so when you see that Baltimore was #1 in the league at opposing QB rating. The Best. Guess who was #2? That's right, New England. Peyton faced 2 of the toughest teams for QBs to face, and he faced them the last 2 weeks of the playoffs. Unfortunately for him, he now has to face Chicago, which is #3....

 

Rex on the other hand has been able to skate bye these past 2 games. First was Seattle with their 26th ranked D against QBs, then NO at #23. Indy isn't top 10, but they are #15, tougher than Rex has faced since (if we throw out GB, who was #8) Min on Dec 3rd, who was #5. Rex had a rating of 1.3, but Chi still won.

 

While Indy is #15, allowing a rating of 80.4 on the year, during the playoffs they forced Trent Green (74.1 during the season) to a 48.4, Steve McNair (82.4 during the season) to a 49.9, and Tom Brady (87.9 during the season) to a 79.5. So Indy has been stepping up a bit on not only run D but defending QBs during this postseason.

 

Now as you know, QB rating is not an indicator of Ws or Ls. I am not making a case that it is. I am stating that QB play is usually important in the Super Bowl, and showing you the numbers.

 

But strictly looking at the QB and his rating, it is impossible to discount the solid performance of Peyton this year, when it matters most, just as it is obvious that Rex, when it matters most, has come up short.

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 7:

 

Special teams

 

We all know special teams have the impact to change the game in a single snap. And we know Chi has been great, but just how great have they been, and how bad has Indy been?

 

Is the spoon feeding ESPN has been giving us about the great Bears return game the truth, or a myth? And if true, how could it impact the game?

 

Chicago's return O against Indy's return D

 

On the season, Chi ranked #1 in return TDs, #2 in punt return average, and #8 in kickoff return average.

 

Indy's ST D ranked #31 in return TDs allowed, #31 in punt return avg allowed, and #30 in kickoff return average allowed.

 

Those numbers are diametrically opposed, and extremely eye-opening.

 

Just for fun, let's see the flip side: Indy's return O against Chicago's return D

 

With only 1 return TD on the year, Indy ranked 13th in punt return average and #7 in kickoff return average (actually ahead of Chicago).

 

Chicago's ST ranked #23 in punt return average and #5 in kickoff return average allowed.

 

So if we matchup their numbers, Chi would have an advantage in both Kickoff return D and both Kickoff return O and punt return O. The only advantage for Indy would be in punt return O, where Chi allows more than Indy gains. This advantage for Chi is more lopsided than just these numbers, because when you look at the comparison, Chi is already #2 in punt return O, and Indy allows even more yards per punt return than Chi gains on average. Same thing with kickoff returns.

 

Now how have the regular season numbers translated into the playoffs?

 

The results are not good, but they are not good for both teams:

 

Indy has allowed 12.8 yards per punt return, which is just a hair better than the 13.1 in the regular season, but is far and away the worst of any team in the playoffs.

 

However Chicago has only averaged 5.8 yards per punt return, which is 3rd worst of the 12 teams in the playoffs, and well below the 12.1 ypr they averaged during the season.

 

Meanwhile, Indy has allowed 24.3 yards per kickoff return, which is 4th worst in the playoffs but is slightly better than what they averaged during the season.

 

Chicago is dead last in kickoff returns, only averaging 16 yards per return, which is well below the 23.3 they averaged on the season.

 

So when Indy is kicking:

 

They are doing slightly better than they did on the regular season, but still not great by any means. Chicago, on the other hand, is performing much, much worse than they did during the regular season in returning kicks.

 

I am looking at average numbers here, so the # of opportunities does not matter. Some have suggested Indy will kick away from Hester. Perhaps. Let's see what Seattle and NO did:

 

During the season, Chicago averaged just over 3.1 punt returns per game, and 3.7 kickoff returns per game.

 

Against Seattle they had 3 punt returns and 4 kickoff returns, and against NO they had 2 punt returns and 3 kickoff returns. So about average in the Seattle game, and less than average in the NO game.

 

I don't know if Indy will kick away from Hester or not. But he hasn't broken one yet, but then again, Seattle and NO have better return D than Indy.

 

Switch the fields, and now Chicago is kicking in the playoffs:

 

Chicago is allowing 22.9 yards per kickoff return, worse than the 20.8 they allowed during the regular season. But Chicago is allowing a mere 2.4 yards per punt return, much better than during the season.

 

Indy has returned their kickoffs for an avg of 19.1 yards, much worse than the 23.6 they did on the season, and returning punts for 11.2 yards, which actually is better than the 9 yards they averaged on the season.

 

So when Chicago is kicking:

 

Chicago has been poor on kickoffs, as has Indy. But on punts, Chi has been great, and so has Indy.

 

What does all of this ST discussion mean:

 

1. Chicago is explosive in their offensive return game, one of the best, and Indy's return D is terrible. However, on the playoffs, Indy’s return D has played a bit better and Chi’s return O really hasn't been doing that well in their return game. Some may have to do w/ facing the #6 and #17 ranked teams in punt returns.

 

2. Indy’s return O is above average in their return game, and Chicago is about average. Both Indy's return O and Chicago's return D have been doing better at punt returns than kickoff returns, so no distinct edge here.

 

3. If Indy can use some of the 2 weeks to improve the special teams, it will significantly improve their chances of winning.

 

Starting Field Position

 

The key to this return game, if TDs are not scored, is average starting field position. That is what the kicking game provides (FGs aside).

 

The Bears, out of 191 drives, started on average at their 32.2 yard line. That is good for #5 in the NFL. The Colts ST defense allowed the other team to start on its own 30.8 yard line, which is #23 in the NFL. So you have one really above average O (Chi) against a slightly below avg D (Ind).

 

The Colts, out of 148 drives, started on average at their own 28.7 yard line. That is #27 in the NFL. The Bears ST defense allowed the other team to start on its own 29.4 yard line, which is #11 in the NFL. So you have a really below average O (Ind) against a slightly above avg D (Chi).

 

While you may not think a 3 yard advantage is much of an advantage, remember - that is just the AVERAGE. They key when comparing one team to the other for this statistic is to realize the Bears are great at getting their offense quality starting field position, and the Colts are bad at allowing good starting field position, and are bad at getting their own offense quality starting field position.

 

So while return numbers are good, starting field position is even better at determining an advantage. It is clear the Bears have a very good advantage here, and the myths that the Bears return game is great is not only true, it has resulted in significant starting field position advantage.

 

 

Section 8

 

Red Zone

 

The red zone undoubtedly will play a key role in this Super Bowl, as it does in most Super Bowls. Let's look at both regular season and postseason numbers:

 

Regular Season: Indy O vs. Chi D

 

Indy was #2 in the league, converting 92% of red zone drives into points, 66% of which were TDs.

 

Chicago was #9 on defense, allowing 80% of red zone drives to be converted into points, 48% of which were TDs.

 

Regular Season: Chi O vs. Indy D

 

Chicago was #18 on offense, converting 84% of red zone drives into points, 48% of which were TDs.

 

Indy was #31 on defense, allowing 82% of red zone drives into points, 59% of which were TDs.

 

What do the regular season numbers tell us?

 

So as good as Indy was on offense, they were as bad on defense. Meanwhile, Chi was above avg on defense and just below average on offense.

 

In the Postseason

 

Postseason: Indy O vs. Chi D

 

Indy was #7 out of 12 playoff teams, converting 92% of red zone drives into points, but only 50% of which were TDs. However, Indy did face the #1 and #2 regular season red zone defenses (Balt and NE) in the playoffs.

 

Chi was dead last of the 12 playoff teams, allowing all 4 red zone drives to be converted not just into points, but into TDs. That's 100% for points and 100% for TDs. And they didn't face a top 10 red zone offense - the #11 and #14 ranked regular season red zone offenses.

 

Postseason: Chi O vs. Indy D

 

Chi was #3 out of 12 teams, converting 88% of red zone drives into points, 63% of which were TDs. However, they faced the #28 and #22 red zone defenses.

 

Indy was #9 out of 12 teams, allowing 71% of red zone drives to be converted into points, 57% of which were TDs. However they did face the #3 and #5 (KC and NE) ranked red zone offenses on the regular season.

 

What do the postseason numbers tell us?

 

Indy has faced much stiffer red zone competition, two top 5 teams in both defense and offense, and still performed well. They converted 92% of offensive opportunities, same as the regular season, and allowed fewer red zone drives to be converted into points on defense - 71%, which is actually better than Chi did on the regular season.

 

Chicago has faced mediocre competition, and has not impressed. They converted slightly more red zone possessions into points as they did on the regular season, and although they converted a larger % into TDs, they faced some very weak red zone defenses. On defense, they have been terrible in the playoffs, allowing all 4 drives to score TDs, and not facing a red zone offense nearly as good as Indys.

 

The advantage here must go to the Colts. If this was the first playoff game, you would lean towards the Bears, but after seeing how Indy has performed against some of the leagues finest in red zone offense/defense, and how poorly Chi has performed against the opposite, the Colts clearly deserve this check.

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 9

 

A look at the lines:

 

First, Indy's O-Line vs. Chicago's D-Line

 

There has been a lot of talk about how Chicago D-Line was hurt by losing Tommie Harris. We know on the season they are holding opponents to 4 ypr. You can see above how my stats break out for ypr based on portions of the season. I can tell you that at home, surprisingly, they allowed 4.3 ypr to teams who usually gain only 4.0 ypr. They did worse than avg. But on the road, they held teams to 3.7 ypr who averaged 3.9 on the season. And their L3 on the road, they clamped up even more, allowing only 3.4 to teams who averaged 4.0. In the playoffs, though, they allowed Seattle and NO, teams who averaged 3.8 ypr on the year, to run for 4.3 ypr. So while they clamped up during the regular season, they have struggled so far in the playoffs.

 

Let's look at how Chi's run D ranks by position - the numbers are the ypr allowed, followed by rank (these positions are not exact, just to show approximate location):

 

LE: 4.09, 16th

LT: 3.53, 7th

MID: 3.99 5th

RT: 4.18 17th

RE; 3.08 6th

 

As you can see, they are very stout in the middle, ranking 5th in the league at runs up the middle. They are also good at defending runs to their far right (offense's left). Their have weaknesses on their left side and right tackle. So up the middle is tough going.

 

So it is no surprise that they ranked #2 in the league at runs stuffed. Meaning runs that result in (on first down) zero or negative gain, or (on second through fourth down) less than one-fourth the yards needed for another first down. (Imagine how good they would be w/ Tommie Harris...) But they ranked #28th in the league in runs of 10+ yards. So like I said, up the middle and you get stuffed, away from the middle and you may have more success.

 

Other teams were aware of this as well, because on the season, they rushed only 42% of the time up the middle on Chi, which is 7% less than the league average. They rushed above the league average on Chicago's RT and LT.

 

Now, let's start looking at real game stats: Chicago's 3 best performances against the run came against AZ (1.7 ypr), NE (2.5 ypr) and TB (3.0 ypr). So let's take a look at how those teams tendencies on the season, and where they are successful in running behind their O-Lines.

 

AZ is terrible at running the ball (tell me something we don't know) and run to their left an avg of #22 in the league, and to their right an avg of 28th in the league.

NE likes to run either up the middle, or to their LE. This plays right into Chi's hands, as Chi is best up the middle and on their RE. NE's combined rank is 12th to their left and 28th to their right.

TB is well below average running to their left. Their avg rank to the left is 26th and to the right is 17th. Not much better.

 

So it's not really surprising that Chi held these teams to few YPR.

 

Let's examine Chicago's 3 worst performances against the run.

 

SF (7.2 ypr) - SF is great running to their LE, avg 6 ypr and #2 in the league, and is well above avg #12 at running to their RE. So they can get run to both edges w/ success.

NYG (6.8 ypr) - They are great at running to the outside. They rank #3 to their LE, #4 to their RT and #2 to their RE.

MIN (5.5 ypr) - They are also top 5 at running to the outside - ranking #5 in runs behind both their RE and RT. They also are top 10 in runs behind their LT.

 

So as you can see, teams that had success against Chi were able to run outside w/ success, not necessarily all the way outside, but let's say not up the middle.

 

Well how did Indy do on the year?

 

They were #1 in the league in runs behind their LT, and top 10 in runs behind both their LE and RT. And not only that, they were #5 in runs up the center. Their runs up the center was better than SF, NYG or MIN up the center.

 

So as long as Indy does not focus on trying to jam the ball up the middle, and uses runs off the middle (which they are successful at doing), they could have moderate to good success running the ball.

 

I know ESPN will tell you that Indy won't be able to run the ball on Chi, but we will see what happens. I am not predicting monster numbers from either back. But success would be gaining just enough yardage to keep the D honest, to allow things to open up for Peyton, and to provide some long runs when the D is expecting pass. I think if the Colts develop a good gameplan in this regard, they will come out on top.

 

Bears O-Line vs the Colts D-Line

 

We know the Colts have been run on during the regular season. We know that during the regular season they averaged 5.3 ypr against. Tell that to them now. In the playoffs so far they have held opponents who gain 3.9 ypr on average to only 3.6 ypr. Very impressive indeed. Remember, in the playoffs, the Bears allowed teams who averaged 3.8 ypr on the year, to run for 4.3 ypr. So the Colts really stepped up, which can't be said for the Bears.

 

Back to the Colts, they were #32 in power success, which is defined as Percentage of runs on third or fourth down, two yards or less to go, that achieved a first down or touchdown. Also includes runs on first-and-goal or second-and-goal from the two-yard line or closer.

 

They were #30 in runs of 10+ yards.

 

Here are their numbers during the regular season by position (ypr followed by rank):

 

LE: 1.86 1st

LT: 4.94 26th

MID: 4.99 32nd

RT: 5.71 32nd

RE: 3.24 8th

 

Surprisingly good on either end, but only because their opponents just run straight up the gut on them. In fact, of the runs against Indy this season, 61% went right up the middle. The league avg is 49% up the middle. (Interestingly enough, the only team that had a higher % of runs straight up the middle was NE, w/ a whopping 68%).

 

So they are bad up the middle, and opponents know it and have tried to take advantage of it.

 

I won't break down their opponents, because there were 6 games on the year they allowed 6 or more ypr. Absolutely terrible. But I will say that those teams who were able to do well against Indy, could run the ball up the middle:

 

NYG - #12 up the middle, #4 to their RT

PHI - #3 up the middle

JAC - #4 up the middle, #3 to their LT

DEN - $6 up the middle, #7 to their RT

the only exception would be:

TEN - which was only #23 up the middle and #16 to their RT. Part of this one has to do w/ Vince Young - ran 9 times for 78 yards in one game, and 4 times for 43 yards and Ten's only TD in the other game.

 

So, let's guess what the Bears are good at?

 

How about ranking #1 at running up the middle, and #8 to their LT.

 

Now remember, Indy on O is #1 behind their LT and #5 up the middle, so collectively better than the Bears. But the point is, the Bears have a better run D than the Colts do, at least during the regular season.

 

The real key will be, does Indy continue to surprisingly excel in the run D dept like they did their first 3 playoff games?

 

Because remember, their opponents in the playoffs:

 

KC - #8 up the middle

Bal - #20 up the middle, #9 to their LT

NE - #9 up the middle

 

They had well above avg running attacks up the middle (save for Bal), but Indy still held them to below their avg rushing yards, and won all 3 games.

 

And those regular season games, when they allowed over 6 ypr to those other teams I listed above, Indy's record in those games was 5-2. So just because Chi may have the power to run on Indy, it does not equate to a win necessarily. So don't be surprised to see Chi time and time again try to pound the ball up the middle.

 

Section 10

 

Conclusions:

 

My favorite scenario is scenario 1, which is a 50/50 split between playoffs and regular season, w/ a slight lean towards road games, especially of late. Overall, these numbers show a VERY EVEN game. Indy holds a 6-5 advantage in offensive stats, and Chi holds a 6-5 advantage in defensive stats. And w/ those numbers, there are several key battles.

 

First of course is the turnover battle. Chicago has been thriving by taking 1.4 fumbles per game whereas opponents averaged only 0.8 on the regular season. But Indy has only fumbled 0.3 times per game, less than the 0.7 their opponents usually force. Indy has thrown 1.3 ints per game and Chi only 0.9, but both are about what their opponents average for interceptions. Indy actually has a slight bit more interceptions on D than Chicago, and the number looks larger when you factor that Indy’s opponents don’t throw as many ints as Chi’s opponents. So this turnover battle will be key. If Chi can force Indy to fumble or create a couple Ints, Chi really has an advantage. On the other hand, if Indy takes care of the ball, it really will hurt Chi because they are used to generating these turnovers.

 

Second is 3rd down conversions. Chi only averaged 35% while Indy was at 52% Indy was well above opponent avg. Both teams on D hold their opponents below their usual average, and both Ds are right around 34% in preventing 3rd down conversions. So the numbers here don’t bode well for Chi on offense, but the real battle will be Indy’s O vs Chi’s D. If Indy can convert about 50% of their 3rd downs, they will severely strain Chi, as Chi is used to holding teams to much lower % and getting their offense back on the field.

 

Then you have the running game, and while both teams are averaging 4 ypr, Chi’s opponents are giving up 4.5, so Chi has been below avg in their run game. But we all know Indy has struggled in theirs, and even w/ factoring playoff numbers in for 50% of the total, Indy is giving up 5 ypr, almost 1 more than opponent avg. If Indy can continue their dominant form from the last 3 games, they have a good shot at holding Chi to around 4 ypr and that would really benefit Indy. If Chi is able to get closer to 5 ypr, they have really helped themselves.

 

Scenario 2: If you want to look at a scenario where there is not as much emphasis on the playoffs as scenario 1, but still over double that of a regular season game (more of a focus on road games over the season), then we find that the Colts have an 8-3 advantage on offense, while the Bears have the 8-3 advantage on defense. So much more uneven on both sides of the ball, but the numbers balance out somewhat, and you can determine whether you prefer the stronger offense or the stronger defense.

 

Scenario 3: If you are a fan of “what have you done for me lately”, and want to look at a scenario which is extremely playoff heavy (85%), and only slight amounts of regular season performance, particularly home games: The Colts have that same narrow advantage on offense, 6-5, but actually have a solid 8-3 advantage on defense. Taking regular season more heavily you had that same 8-3 advantage for the Bears. So if the Colts step up as they have the past 3 games, and the Bears play in line w/ their last couple of playoff games, we could see a good game on offense but one where the Colts D steps up when it counts and tames the Bears offense.

 

So those are the primary angles I see w/ regard to the numbers generated in the scenarios.

 

Looking more at the other analyses:

 

Passer ratings – no question passer rating has mattered in the Super Bowl, the true question is which QB has the better game. I have more confidence in Manning, particularly after seeing his performance in the regular season. However, both QBs are somewhat prone to getting nervous, tight, and making bad decisions, Manning in big moments, and Rex when his team is down or struggling. While all the talk has been about Chi’s D scheming to stop Manning, and Rex just folding in the big game, we haven’t heard as much talk about what Indy’s D will do w/ Dungy to stop Chi’s run game. While that doesn’t have anything to do w/ passer rating, it will play a part in the confidence of each QB. I give the nod to Peyton and the Colts in this one, w/ the potential for it to be even if Peyton chokes, and the potential for it to be a landslide if Rex gets down and pressured, and starts making bad decisions.

 

Special teams – Chi has been great this year, no doubt, and Indy has been average, or below average. I am not talking about FGs here, I am talking return games, on O and D. Chi has struggled a bit in the playoffs, and if they continue that struggle, their biggest hope to aid their offense: Field Position, their dreams will go down the drain. If Chi can force Indy to drop into the 30s w/ 3rd down completion %, and get their return game going, I can see Chi going a long way towards a close game, and even a win. Chi MUST get the same great field position (#5 on the year) they did during the regular season. I definitely will not give this category to the Colts. It may not be as lopsided as some will think, due to Chi’s recent struggles. Couple that w/ the fact that Chi needs field position to have a chance in this one, the pressure is really on. I give a slight lean to Chi, mainly because if they have an avg day, it won’t be enough for the W. They need a great day. Adv Chi, but it is essential.

 

Red Zone – Chi has struggled in the playoffs, allowing 100% redzone possessions to be turned into 7 points. It doesn’t get easier facing the #2 team in the league. Indy has played tougher opposition recently in red zone O and D than has Chi, and has performed well. The advantage here goes to the Colts.

 

O-Lines/D-Lines – Chi can be run on and beat, and Indy seems to have a run game that has enjoyed decent success at running towards Chi’s weaknesses. However, a more decided advantage lies for Chi in running up the middle of Indy’s run D. I know nothing of the gameplans of either OC, but I will tell you that if you see Indy running up the middle to much, they are in for trouble. Indy backers better hope they run away from the middle, and Bears backers must hope they pound the middle of Indy’s D-Line. The problem in determining a true advantage here is that Indy has stepped up so significantly here. And this comparison is not just the ypr success, as I have discussed that earlier. It is which team can be run on best by the other team. I have to give a slight nod to the Bears, but believe me, it is not as lopsided as those pundits on ESPN want you to think. It depends on how Indy attacks Chi’s line, but so long as Indy is not getting stuffed constantly, they will keep the D honest, open up the pass game even more, and generate some surprising long gainers on runs of 10+ yards. Again, nod to the Bears but not landslide victory.

[Steeltown Dre]

Section 11

 

My Pick

 

I have tried to bring the above analysis as unbiased as possible. I will tell you that the following bets will be slightly biased, as I already have a sizeable amount on Indy ML for +150.

 

I do think Indy wins this game. I think there is a good chance it will be a close game, and there are several keys to deciding the outcome. I am a value bettor, and I do see some value in the Bears +7.5, so long as certain things go their way. Can they win? Absolutely. Do they need to hold the Colts on 3rd down, generate a key turnover or two, and provide quality starting field position to do so? Definitely.

 

It is for this reason that I will add a play on Bears +7.5 and hope they step up to the table. I’d love a 3, 4 or 7 point win for the Colts obviously. But if everything goes right for the Bears and they will get the win, and I don’t want to be out everything I put on the Colts.

 

So I’ll take about 70% of the play I made on Colts ML and throw it onto the Bears +7.5. Right now +7.5 is -130 at Pinny, which I don’t like. Shop elsewhere, or wait until more Colts money comes in closer to gametime.

 

There is a chance to put in about 10% of my Colts ML bet and put it on Bears ML +220 or more. If I did that, the 3 scenarios would be:

 

Colts Win and Cover = 70% profit of Colts bet

Colts Win/Bears Cover = 201% profit of Colts bet

Bears Win = -17% loss of Colts bet

 

Which would equate to an average of 85% profit of my Indy ML over the 3 plays.

 

If I didn’t go for the middle (& hedge w/ Bears ML), I would have:

 

Colts Win and Cover = 150% profit of Colts bet

Colts Win/Bears Cover = 150% profit of Colts bet

Bears Win = -100% loss of Colts bet

 

Which would equate to an average of 67% profit of my Indy ML over the 3 plays

 

I’ve equated the %’s, and because I feel that Indy has about a 85% chance to win, and a 35% chance to cover, I think this is the way to go. If I wanted to ensure profit, I could throw more than 10% on Bears ML, but as I think they only have about a 15% chance to win, I don’t want to throw too much on it. We will see what happens.

 

I have not made any of these plays on the Bears yet, so these % are rough right now, and as always, I will look to maximize value with in-game betting.

 

If I had to recommend a pick to someone who had no Indy ML pending, I probably would lean to taking the Bears and the points, but I also like Indy to win the game. So that is why I feel cautiously confident in my position, and why I like the fact that I will set myself up to have great chance at a good day, a decent chance at an incredible day, and a only a mediocre chance at a slightly subpar day. Indy could cover, so I would not bet more than I am willing and able to lose on the Bears +7.5

 

I look forward to hearing comments both good and bad.

 

Good luck on your wagers.

[BeeR]

Do y'all place bets online? If so, where?

[Steeltown Dre]

I am using a local for most of my transactions since Pinny shut down. I will re-evaluate things after the Super Bowl and determine where to put my money.

[Gdawg]

Excellent, as always Dre, made for very interesting reading. I'm seriously considering hitting the Bears at +7.5 myself now to create a similar scenario. Thanks again!

[rattsass]

That is an impressive pile of bandwidth there Dre!!!

 

Despite all that research, I would have expected you to just throw it all out the window and fade me.

 

But since you aren't fading me, I think you might be off kilter on this one, and I'll fade you. I'm on the Colts!!

 

Actually, after thinking this through for a week and a half, and absorbing mind numbing piles of statistics and opinions, I am thinking a little differently.

 

I just can't get past the historical numbers in the Superbowl. The outright winner of the game has covered the spread in all but 6 or 7 games. And I just don't think the Bears will win. If you count all other factors just about even (which seems to be the case) the overriding thing I keep coming back to is Manning vs. Grossman. The disparity in experience and excellence at the position has rarely been so glaring in a Superbowl (i.e. basically a rookie vs. a 9 year veteran future Hall of Famer) And to me the game comes down to those guys. I expect both offensive lines to struggle at times to keep defenders off their guy, so it will come down to which QB handles the pressure better. Me thinks that will not be Grossman. I am thinking more and more that the Colts can cover this lofty spread. Manning can't afford to let this one get away.

[Steeltown Dre]

That is an impressive pile of bandwidth there Dre!!!

 

Despite all that research, I would have expected you to just throw it all out the window and fade me.

 

But since you aren't fading me, I think you might be off kilter on this one, and I'll fade you. I'm on the Colts!!

 

Actually, after thinking this through for a week and a half, and absorbing mind numbing piles of statistics and opinions, I am thinking a little differently.

 

I just can't get past the historical numbers in the Superbowl. The outright winner of the game has covered the spread in all but 6 or 7 games. And I just don't think the Bears will win. If you count all other factors just about even (which seems to be the case) the overriding thing I keep coming back to is Manning vs. Grossman. The disparity in experience and excellence at the position has rarely been so glaring in a Superbowl (i.e. basically a rookie vs. a 9 year veteran future Hall of Famer) And to me the game comes down to those guys. I expect both offensive lines to struggle at times to keep defenders off their guy, so it will come down to which QB handles the pressure better. Me thinks that will not be Grossman. I am thinking more and more that the Colts can cover this lofty spread. Manning can't afford to let this one get away.

 

You are right in that line of thinking ratt. Which is why you aren't really fading me, as I badly want the Colts to win.

 

I'd love for the Bears to cover, so that I can get a solid middle. But because I set this up nicely for myself, I'll get:

 

profit of 70% of my Colts ML bet if the Colts win and cover (this 70% includes the money lost on the Bears)

profit of 201% of my Colts ML bet if the Colts win and Bears cover (ideal situation)

loss of -17% of my Colts ML bet if the Bears win outright.

 

So I will be pulling most of the game for the Colts to ride this one on top, which I think is fairly likely. But then I will be hoping the Bears make it respectable or close at the end. I'll be happy w/ a 70% profit and be overwealmed w/ a 201% profit.

 

Part of my reasoning for taking the Bears was the possibility of the middle, and part of it was to really minimize losses should they somehow beat the Colts, which is a possibility.

 

I feel I am in as good a situation as I could be.

[rattsass]

You are right in that line of thinking ratt. Which is why you aren't really fading me, as I badly want the Colts to win.

 

I'd love for the Bears to cover, so that I can get a solid middle. But because I set this up nicely for myself, I'll get:

 

profit of 70% of my Colts ML bet if the Colts win and cover (this 70% includes the money lost on the Bears)

profit of 201% of my Colts ML bet if the Colts win and Bears cover (ideal situation)

loss of -17% of my Colts ML bet if the Bears win outright.

 

So I will be pulling most of the game for the Colts to ride this one on top, which I think is fairly likely. But then I will be hoping the Bears make it respectable or close at the end. I'll be happy w/ a 70% profit and be overwealmed w/ a 201% profit.

 

Part of my reasoning for taking the Bears was the possibility of the middle, and part of it was to really minimize losses should they somehow beat the Colts, which is a possibility.

 

I feel I am in as good a situation as I could be.

 

I agree completely. If I had a big one on the Colts moneyline I would be playing the middle like a madman going for the big kill. It must be great to be you right now!!

[crispirons]

great read dre. family members and friends have been asking me my take of the game, i'm not sure if its for gambling purposes or just my general take. the bears will need a few things to go there way to win this game. trench battle and takeover margin being the main key. people are always pointing out the disparity at qb to me, well..............qb is very, very important. no doubt about it. will it be the deciding factor in the game??? thats where i beg to differ. the "other non qb" bears players might, just might, get/have a little chip on there shoulder. last i checked, it was a team game, not just manning vs. grossman. its an edge most people don't calculate into there handicapping.

 

 

i think the bears are going to surprise alot of people on sunday. we may lose, but i think they will be game for the challenge and might come out with the victory. i have small action so far on the game. 2 team parlay, bears +7 and under 48.5. bears -3.5 at +320. bears moneyline 1st half +190 and bears 1st quarter moneyline +168.

[Steeltown Dre]

Excellent, as always Dre, made for very interesting reading. I'm seriously considering hitting the Bears at +7.5 myself now to create a similar scenario. Thanks again!

 

 

Thanks Gdawg.

 

One other possiblity for you is not going for a middle, but going for a true hedge. This is because we got in on the Colts +150 last week:

 

You could take 1/2 of what you bet on Colts +150 and put it on the Bears ML at +225

 

Then your 3 scenarios end up being:

 

Colts Win and Cover 100% profit

Colts Win/Bears Cover 100% profit

Bears Win 13% profit

 

A couple of things w/ that. #1, the +225 is not as high as it should be, so there is a little less to be gained. #2, you don't have the chance on a 201% profit of the middle.

 

But, you are assured of at least 100% profit unless the Bears win, and then only a 13% profit.

 

Which would be the equivalent of getting Colts ML at +100 right now (which it is -220 or so currently), plus the insurance that if you lose that bet, you will still be up 13%. Pretty comforting.

 

However, that is a conservative way to do it, since you have +150 on the ML right now. It all depends on how likely you think it is the Bears could win. Do you like money, and would rather take 100% payout of your bet and a 13% if you lose? Or do you really want to gamble, and take a 150% payout and let it ride that you lose your bet if the Colts lose?

 

Granted, there is middle ground w/ the middle scenario, but you would only make 70% profit if Colts win and cover (vs 100% using the above method) and would lose 17% of your bet should the Bears win (vs winning 13% using the above method).

 

But you would have the opportunity for 201% if you do the middle, and doing the hedge would only give you 100%....

[Steeltown Dre]

great read dre. family members and friends have been asking me my take of the game, i'm not sure if its for gambling purposes or just my general take. the bears will need a few things to go there way to win this game. trench battle and takeover margin being the main key. people are always pointing out the disparity at qb to me, well..............qb is very, very important. no doubt about it. will it be the deciding factor in the game??? thats where i beg to differ. the "other non qb" bears players might, just might, get/have a little chip on there shoulder. last i checked, it was a team game, not just manning vs. grossman. its an edge most people don't calculate into there handicapping.

 

 

I definitely agree - the Bears to win in my opinion must:

 

1. Win the turnover battle, which everyone says, but they have been winning games due to their turnover margin, and if they can't keep it that way, they could be out of this one.

 

2. Get great field position from special teams. Hester doesn't need to have a TD, he just needs to give the Bears that great field position they had during the regular season (5th best in the league).

 

3. Hold Manning's 3rd down conversions in the high 30% range. The Colts have been getting over 50% on 3rd downs all year long. The Bears have been holding teams in the low 30s, and getting the ball back for their offense and for their special teams. If the Colts can keep converting, that is less time for the Bears to have the ball, less opportunities for a key special teams return, and if the Colts convert those drives into points, it will leave Grossman struggling to play from behind, and we all know that is a recipe for disaster.

 

4. Get solid 4.5 ypr from their run game. They don't have to be outstanding (the league avg is just over 4.1 ypr). But they can't struggle.

 

If the Bears falter in those areas, I think they are done for. They have a legit shot at winning this thing, but they must play up to their potential. I will put it this way - if the Bears play up to their full potential, the Colts will be in trouble.

[crispirons]

I will put it this way - if the Bears play up to their full potential, the Colts will be in trouble.

 

 

 

spoken like a man who has a good comprehension of what is going on with this game. honestly, nobody probably believes it besides me and bears homers, but this game has the possibility of blow out too. and not by the team favored. could easily happen that the bears are up by 14+ in the second half of this game.

 

regardless of outcome, the bears had an outstanding yr, i had a good yr gambling, and the outcome of this game won't change any of that for me. would be nice though to be world champs again.

[whitem0nkey]

I was listening to the radio and they had a Vegas guys on. he said that the colts are the most Wagered team in the past 5 years. i tried to find some info on this, i found one article that talks a bit about that.

 

"Right now, the Colts [are the most wagered team] because they are the most exciting team to watch," Scucci said. "It is not always the good teams that draw money. It is the exciting team."

 

So the Colts' odds have to reflect that. Which means professional bettors will realize that there is often value on the team the Colts are playing because the fun money [amateur bettors] is on the Colts and the line is moved accordingly.

 

[crispirons]

I was listening to the radio and they had a Vegas guys on. he said that the colts are the most Wagered team in the past 5 years. i tried to find some info on this, i found one article that talks a bit about that.

 

"Right now, the Colts [are the most wagered team] because they are the most exciting team to watch," Scucci said. "It is not always the good teams that draw money. It is the exciting team."

 

So the Colts' odds have to reflect that. Which means professional bettors will realize that there is often value on the team the Colts are playing because the fun money [amateur bettors] is on the Colts and the line is moved accordingly.

 

 

 

i can't believe they sported as good a record ats as they did this yr. seems every time i was in on them, they went down. or so it seemed. i did win a few first half bets on them, but anyway, public perception is still of the team that was putting up near 40 every game. they changed game plans a bit and people(general public, not pure nfl enthusiasts like us) are still in the past. they can still play like that, but, against the bears d, i wouldn't count on it. under is dropping too folks. down to 48 at some places. here come the wise guys?????

[Rockerbraves]

So the Colts' odds have to reflect that. Which means professional bettors will realize that there is often value on the team the Colts are playing because the fun money [amateur bettors] is on the Colts and the line is moved accordingly.

 

 

 

I seriously doubt the oddsmakers are handicapping the game based off of amateur bettors.

[Steeltown Dre]

I was listening to the radio and they had a Vegas guys on. he said that the colts are the most Wagered team in the past 5 years. i tried to find some info on this, i found one article that talks a bit about that.

 

"Right now, the Colts [are the most wagered team] because they are the most exciting team to watch," Scucci said. "It is not always the good teams that draw money. It is the exciting team."

 

So the Colts' odds have to reflect that. Which means professional bettors will realize that there is often value on the team the Colts are playing because the fun money [amateur bettors] is on the Colts and the line is moved accordingly.

 

 

 

 

This is a valid point.

 

The Bears have covered their spreads by more points than the Colts have covered their spreads over the course of the regular season and playoffs.

 

The calculation is such: Take the odds and then the final margin of victory. If they won by 10 but the spread was 5, they covered by 5. If the spread was 14, they lost by 4.

 

When I run the numbers, I find that on the season, the Bears beat the spread (cumulatively) by 81 points. That is an avg of 4.5 points a game. Which is a fair number of points.

 

When I run the numbers for the Colts, I find that they failed to cover the spread (cumulatively) by 10 points. That is an avg of 0.5 points a game. Which is a very small number of points.

 

The real question is, what does this mean?

 

The only thing I think it shows is that the public (ultimately we are the ones who play the largest role in determining the spreads) undervalued the Bears, but was pretty accurate (but w/ the slighest overvalue) w/ regard to the Colts.

 

How could you use something like this to your advantage? Well, you can assume that once again in the Super Bowl, the Bears may be undervalued. Perhaps by a point, perhaps by a few points.

 

Should that automatically generate "Bet Bears" flashing lights in your head? No. Just because the Bears may be slightly undervalued does not mean they will cover. You have to look at the MATCHUP and find the edges. If the game seems close to you, then you know in your pocket you hold a card that shows perhaps slight edge in public perception to the Colts, and can use that knowledge collectively to bet the Bears.

 

Good stuff guys...

[bushwacked]

"Right now, the Colts [are the most wagered team] because they are the most exciting team to watch," Scucci said. "It is not always the good teams that draw money. It is the exciting team."

 

So the Colts' odds have to reflect that. Which means professional bettors will realize that there is often value on the team the Colts are playing because the fun money [amateur bettors] is on the Colts and the line is moved accordingly.

 

 

Interesting. One of many factors to consider. Anyone know how the Colts were ATS this year? Seems a little too simplistic to assume the smart money always goes against the Colts.

 

hey can still play like that, but, against the bears d, i wouldn't count on it. under is dropping too folks. down to 48 at some places.

 

 

Crispy, not trying to be an antagonist, but I've seen you laud the Bears D a lot in these betting threads as of late and I don't really get it. They are not close to the dominant D of early in the season. When was the last time the Bears D came close to shutting down an opponent?

 

- Since week 14 through the playoffs the Bears have given up and average of 290+ yards through the air.

 

- There best showing of pass D during that time was against Seattle (195 yards), but they also gave up 125+ yards on the ground and 24 points.

 

If Tim Rattay and Jon Kitna recently had very good games against Chicago, why in the world should we expect Peyton Manning to struggle putting points on the board?

[bushwacked]

I seriously doubt the oddsmakers are handicapping the game based off of amateur bettors.

 

 

You don't think an uneducated betting public putting down dimes influences the point spread?

[crispirons]

 

Crispy, not trying to be an antagonist, but I've seen you laud the Bears D a lot in these betting threads as of late and I don't really get it. They are not close to the dominant D of early in the season. When was the last time the Bears D came close to shutting down an opponent?

 

- Since week 14 through the playoffs the Bears have given up and average of 290+ yards through the air.

 

- There best showing of pass D during that time was against Seattle (195 yards), but they also gave up 125+ yards on the ground and 24 points.

 

If Tim Rattay and Jon Kitna recently had very good games against Chicago, why in the world should we expect Peyton Manning to struggle putting points on the board?

 

 

 

no antagonist taken. not to make excuses for the d either, cause like you said, they weren't playing up to the level of early season. i disagree about the playoffs though. watching the seattle game, they played very well imo. alexander got alot of yards, but how many came on 3rd and long plays where the bears were totally expecting pass?? he gashed them on those plays but was held in check alot of the afternoon. at least the way i saw it. against nawlins, they were opportunistic and shut down the run pretty well. no, very well. when it made nawlins one dimensional, the bears d turned it up a notch. again, at least the way i saw it. the last point, and again, it may seem like i'm making an excuse but the last few games of the yr had very little meaning for the bears. they were on cruise control. i'm not condoning it, but i don't think they took those games too seriously. its hard to get up for 16 games a yr. any team.

 

 

getting closer to game time.......goose pimples on my arms.

[Rockerbraves]

This is a valid point.

 

 

No it's not. That's crazy talk.