godtomsatan Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 All I'm saying is that, if I'm going to throw $$ down on a relative long-shot to win the whole thing, I'll take the 13-3 team that nearly made it this year, over a disfunctional 8-8 Jets team or the Cowboys (who haven't won a playoff game in how many years?). I'll agree with this. I don't think SF is a perennial 12+-type win team though. As good as Alex Smith demonstrated he can be in the game against New Orleans, he demonstrated his limitations in the game against New York. If Crabtree can ever step up his game, maybe..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm not saying that they're my pick to win it all next year, but I certainly like them as much (or more) than at least a couple of the teams who have 12-1 odds. In my opinion, the Super Bowl is likely to be won by one of about 7-8 teams next year, and I put the Niners in that group. Everybody else in that group has 12-1 odds, or better. The fact that the Niners are grouped with the likes of the Jets, Falcons, Cowboys, and Lions is laughable. Again, no disrespect to those teams, but two of them didn't even make the playoffs (and a third scored two points in their playoff game). Meanwhile, San Francisco hosted the NFC Championship (I realize that had something to do with Green Bay losing, obviously), and would have been in the Super Bowl this year, if not for two botched punts. As for Alex Smith, I think a lot of people are misinformed/confused about what kind of team the 49ers are, based on what we saw in the playoffs. It's not like Alex Smith had some sort of fluke year in which he pulled a bunch of big plays out of his ass. It was quite the opposite... A large part of the team's success was because Smith was put in a position where he didn't have to make big plays for them to win games. Harbaugh is certainly not going to mess with that success... They will have the same recipe this year. Run the ball, pass just enough to keep teams honest, combined with one of the best D's in the league. Conservative, but not to a fault. The fact that they underachieved two years ago means very little, as it was a completely different coaching staff. I guess I just think they're more likely to get even better, rather than regress, given how much of an impact Harbaugh was able to make in his first season (with a team that had previously underachieved on an annual basis). No doubt, playing road games against GB, NO, and NE is going to be tough. But, they also host Miami, Buffalo, and play at Minnesota, not to mention the Rams twice, obviously. Again, this year was no fluke, and their playoff performance showed that. It's not like they went 13-3 because they didn't play anybody, and then were exposed in the post-season. If anything, the post-season proved that they can play with (and beat) anyone in the NFL. Not that this means much, but their 2012 schedule is actually the 7th softest schedule in the league, based on this year's W/L records. Granted, they could lose to the Giants, Bears, Lions, and go 6-10 next year. But, I think that's unlikely to happen, given what they showed this year. All I'm saying is that, if I'm going to throw $$ down on a relative long-shot to win the whole thing, I'll take the 13-3 team that nearly made it this year, over a disfunctional 8-8 Jets team or the Cowboys (who haven't won a playoff game in how many years?). I think they'll be better next year than they were this year. Probably not record-wise, but they'll still win enough to make the playoffs, and likely repeat as division champs. I think 11-5 or, at worst, 10-6 sounds about right. Well put... and I think they are good enough odds and good enough performance last year to warrant some coin on them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Didn't read every thread but boy what a division the NFC East is! 3 of the Top 10 ranked teams are from said division. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 i like the saints at 6-1 although i would likely bet Giants at 10-1 Nice odds for defending SB champs that may not lose any key players ( if they hold onto osi , and Manningham ) ...young team still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Hmmmm..... In order: Packers 5:1 Saints 6:1 Patriots 7:1 Giants 10:1 Steelers 12:1 Eagles 12:1 Texans 12:1 Ravens 12:1 Falcons 20:1 Cowboys 20:1 Jets 20:1 49ers 20:1 Lions 20:1 Bears 30:1 Cardinals 30:1 Bengals 40:1 Colts 40:1 Titans 50:1 Raiders 50:1 Dolphins 50:1 Chiefs 50:1 Broncos 50:1 Panthers 50:1 Bills 50:1 Seahawks 60:1 Browns 100:1 Jags 100:1 Vikings 100:1 Rams 100:1 Redskins 100:1 In the 20 to 1 group I would drop the Jets, I do not think they belong in the group. Also out of respect I would put the list the group in the order 49ers, Lions, Falcons and then Cowboys. I don't see the Bears being noticeably below the 20 to 1 group. I certainly like them better than the Cardinals. The Rams had a very difficult year injury wise. I see them bouncing back. Grouping the Rams with the rest of the 100 to 1 folks seems harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 I actually like the 3 favorites. A lot will change between now and 11 months from now. But as long as Rodgers, Brady, and Brees are healthy, their offenses will be dominant. And all 3 can win a Superbowl with a mediocre defense. I think there is more than a 50% chance that one of those 3 teams wins the Superbowl and 50% would be the break even point on betting on those 3 teams combined. Difficult to ignore how draft choice rich the Patriots are right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Didn't read every thread but boy what a division the NFC East is! 3 of the Top 10 ranked teams are from said division. That's only because their fans will put up a lot of action without thinking. The NFC East teaams all have significant flaws, including the new SB champs. Their collective odds are better than 4:1 despite having to presumably go through the 2 favorites to get there. Edited February 12, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 That's only because their fans will put up a lot of action without thinking. The NFC East teaams all have significant flaws, including the new SB champs. Their collective odds are better than 4:1 despite having to presumably go through the 2 favorites to get there. so NFC east fans tend to gamble more i guess and spend more money in doing so ? is that it ? and what significant flaw do new SB champs have exactly ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) so NFC east fans tend to gamble more i guess and spend more money in doing so ? is that it ? They and the national media tend to significantly overestimate the strength of the NFC East. You don't need to go any further than this MB to see examples of that. and what significant flaw do new SB champs have exactly ? You mean besides being at best the 5th best team in the NFC? Look - it's admirable what they managed to pull off what they did. But I wouldn't expect them to be able to catch GB next year the same week their OC's son dies again. GB's O and Rodgers in particular were pretty clearly shaken by it and it showed in their play. They missed NO & DET, and they got damned lucky in SF when a 2nd string returner doomed the 9ers. Their running game is subpar, and their O-line needs some help. Their LBs are seriously substandard and their DBs are merely average on a good day - and that's a real problem in a conference where Rodgers, Brees, and Stafford play. Edited February 12, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You mean besides being at best the 5th best team in the NFC? Look - it's admirable what they managed to pull off what they did. But I wouldn't expect them to be able to catch GB next year the same week their OC's son dies again. GB's O and Rodgers in particular were pretty clearly shaken by it and it showed in their play. They missed NO & DET, and they got damned lucky in SF when a 2nd string returner doomed the 9ers. Their running game is subpar, and their O-line needs some help. Their LBs are seriously substandard and their DBs are merely average on a good day - and that's a real problem in a conference where Rodgers, Brees, and Stafford play. I don't know. I'd say they earned their Super Bowl win this year. They beat, on the road, the Packers, who were arguably the top team in the league. They beat, on the road, one of the best, if not the best defenses in the league. They then beat one of the top 10 QB's of all time in the Super Bowl. They won it fair and square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) I don't know. I'd say they earned their Super Bowl win this year. They beat, on the road, the Packers, who were arguably the top team in the league. They beat, on the road, one of the best, if not the best defenses in the league. They then beat one of the top 10 QB's of all time in the Super Bowl. They won it fair and square. Nobody's saying they didn't win the SB or didn't work hard to do it. But they got damned lucky catching GB in the midst of an immediately proximate terrible tragedy, and they missed NO & DET completely. The planets aligned for them this year. That won't happen again next year. Edited February 12, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You mean besides being at best the 5th best team in the NFC? Look - it's admirable what they managed to pull off what they did. But I wouldn't expect them to be able to catch GB next year the same week their OC's son dies again. GB's O and Rodgers in particular were pretty clearly shaken by it and it showed in their play. They missed NO & DET, and they got damned lucky in SF when a 2nd string returner doomed the 9ers. Their running game is subpar, and their O-line needs some help. Their LBs are seriously substandard and their DBs are merely average on a good day - and that's a real problem in a conference where Rodgers, Brees, and Stafford play. Nobody's saying they didn't win the SB or didn't work hard to do it. But they got damned lucky catching GB in the midst of an immediately proximate terrible tragedy, and they missed NO & DET completely. The planets aligned for them this year. That won't happen again next year. I agree with Bronco Billy here. I feel dirty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Nobody's saying they didn't win the SB or didn't work hard to do it. But they got damned lucky catching GB in the midst of an immediately proximate terrible tragedy, and they missed NO & DET completely. The planets aligned for them this year. That won't happen again next year. you forgot to add that they caught New England with a one legged Gronkowski... Edited February 12, 2012 by HowboutthemCowboys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 you forgot to add that they caught New England with a one legged Gronkowski... NE was at best the 3rd best team in the AFC. 4th if PIT is healthy. They got damned lucky also. An incredibly easy schedule earned them home field throughout. They missed HOU completely, caught the weakest team in the playoffs in their first game, and BAL shanked an easy kick that knocks them out even though they're playing at home. There's a reason the SB waas a relatively lackluster game. Neither team represented the cream of the crop in their conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 so NFC east fans tend to gamble more i guess and spend more money in doing so ? is that it ? and what significant flaw do new SB champs have exactly ? I'm not even going to bother responding to the latter part, because the team went 9-7 and got hot. They won it all, they won it fair and square, and were impressive in the process, but as far as boding well for the future, this is a team that has some holes. And as far as the former, yeah, that's exactly what it is. The odds represent as much who is betting as much as who Vegas thinks is going to win. The NFC East has 4 of the 7 most valuable franchises in the game. That's reflective of market size and fan influence in things like TV ratings and gambling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm starting to think we should eliminate the playoffs in the NFL and do something like the BCS system. Rank the teams in the AFC and NFC after the season is over and let the best ranked teams play for the title. Since according to some the Giant were not the best team in the NFC why should they get to play for the title. Same goes for the Patriots (who are only 3 or 4 best in the AFC). Maybe then we'll stop hearing about how some team got so lucky and had every break go their way (coaches with sons dying, players injured replaced by guys who make mistakes, hobbled all pro TEs, etc). I mean why bother having the teams play each other to decide who was best. Heck why even play the regular season, just play the games on Madden and let that decide the league champion. Defending SB champs regardless of how good they are and how they won it should always have lower odds the next year, since they rarely repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Maybe then we'll stop hearing about how some team got so lucky and had every break go their way (coaches with sons dying, players injured replaced by guys who make mistakes, hobbled all pro TEs, etc). I mean why bother having the teams play each other to decide who was best. Heck why even play the regular season, just play the games on Madden and let that decide the league champion. 8 of the last 12 games the Giants played, including the playoffs, they entered as the underdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 8 of the last 12 games the Giants played, including the playoffs, they entered as the underdog. So? Does that affect their chances of winning the SB in 2013? My point is simply, the games are played to decide a winner. All this talk afterward about which team is actually better is silly. The "who is better" is settled on the field, not in some stastical analysis. As far as who is better going into 2012 season and who should have better odds, we should leave out the "well the Giants just got lucky" stuff. I also don't think that the current champion by nature of having just won the title are the favorites to win again. Especially in the NFL, where there is a lot of change from year to year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 BAL shanked an easy kick that knocks them out even though they're playing at home. Pretty sure that kick only would have taken them to overtime where who knows what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 My point is simply, the games are played to decide a winner. All this talk afterward about which team is actually better is silly. The "who is better" is settled on the field, not in some stastical analysis. You were mocking the notion that the team that settled it on the field wasn't the best team out there when the public/oddsmakers agreed with the sentiment that they were not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 You were mocking the notion that the team that settled it on the field wasn't the best team out there when the public/oddsmakers agreed with the sentiment that they were not. Huh? I think the only thing I'm mocking is people saying the Patriots were really the best team this past season or that the Giants were the 3-4 best team in the NFC. I don't really care what the oddsmakers say, and we all know that isn't simply a view of who is better (or more likely to win the next SB, but skewed by how they think people bet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.