Brady/Manning XVII

schillzilla

lurker
May 11, 2006
76
Unless the books are expecting a lot of late money coming in on the Broncos at +3 today/sunday, I'm having a a hard time understanding carrying an 80/20 position from a risk management position.
Unless they feel like den +3 is actually an undervalued position. Then they are happy to have the bulk of the money on the opposite side.
 

SuperManny

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
596
Washington, DC
Keep in mind they are making something on each bet, so volume of betting is one of their key goals. Thus, their risk management includes 'volume of bets' as well as their assessment of the likelihood of different outcomes from the betting on the game.
If the Patriots win by 7 they are going to lose a ton of money regardless of volume of bets. They don't make any money on the winning bets.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,277
where I was last at
Unless they feel like den +3 is actually an undervalued position. Then they are happy to have the bulk of the money on the opposite side.
Then the books are in the position of taking a position, and hoping for an outcome, just like the customers. Hoping for an outcome is not what they excel in and get paid for. Managing risk, and collecting a risk-free fee is a better and more predictable business model.
 
Real question: I've heard the old canard, and from a risk management perspective it makes sense to roughly balance the positions.. Unless the outcome is known, why take the risk of a losing a heavy position, and why not just take the risk-free return? If the betting public is so pro Pats, why not adjust the line, from -3 to -4 or higher to theoretically boost a return?
An ex-girlfriend of mine had an uncle who worked in the back offices at Caesars Sportsbook and we had a conversation about this once. Here is what he told me...

1. The idea that the media knows exactly how much is being bet on one before the game is a pretty far off. Books will often release the numbers beforehand as a way to encourage more action one way or the other. And those numbers aren't totally accurate. For instance, if you hear "80% is being bet on NE" on Friday, quite often it's 76% and that was just the action up until Wednesday...the money have have actually moved a little the other way at some point and the public isn't totally aware yet.

2. Even if 80% of the money is going to NE at -3, that's not the whole story. People have been making different wagers all year that will be determined by this game. There is often big money placed future bets, such as "The Broncos to win the SB (or AFC Championship) at 8 to 1". Those payouts might be much less compared to "The Patriots to win the SB at 3 to 1" because a huge number of people took NE to win it all back in the preseason. And we don't know how many bets were on the money line either, which has much different odds. His point was there is more to the payouts than just the winner and the spread. It's not a huge factor but casinos know it and keep it in mind when determining their risk.

3. Sportsbooks can get burned by shifting the line. For example, $10M gets bet on NE at -3 on Monday and the books feel its too much action that way (especially if it's the sharps money), so they move it to -4 on Tuesday...money keeps coming in on NE so they push it to -4.5. That forces a lot of action on Denver. That's good, right? Not if the Pats win by 4. That is their nightmare scenario and it happened in SB XIII. The line opened at Pitt -3.5 and all the early money went there. It moved to -4 for a short time and then to -4.5 by kickoff. Nearly all the late money came in on Dallas. The Steelers won 35-31 and it's still referred to as "Black Sunday" in Vegas.

4. Lastly, as many argue, sportsbooks do like to have a 50/50 split because the can't lose. But sometimes they actually don't mind "rolling the dice" like a normal fan. As a few posters pointed out, the casinos are making a fortune either way that day from alcohol/food sales, normal table betting, etc. They love the total volume of the action. And when the only big betting games that day are the SB or two conference games, it's almost impossible to make the numbers 50/50 because there are only a limited number of point spreads to shift around. In the end, they look at the risk as being part of the business and may feel Denver at -3 is truly the most accurate spread. And remember, even if NE covers, they're still getting the vig from the losing money and like I stated in numbers 1 and 2, the number they actually pay out may not be nearly as high as reported after calculating all the betting scenarios.

This is what he told me and it makes sense. But he was kind of a psychopath too, so....

Edit - Spelling
 
Last edited:

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
Then the books are in the position of taking a position, and hoping for an outcome, just like the customers. Hoping for an outcome is not what they excel in and get paid for. Managing risk, and collecting a risk-free fee is a better and more predictable business model.
Unless (1) they are much better at predicting an outcome vs the spread than the vast majority of the people betting, and (2) they are in for the long haul.

Short term they will lose money on individual outcomes, but over time they maximize their profits. As long as they manage their risk long-term, it seems like a good business model to me.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,006
Unless the books are expecting a lot of late money coming in on the Broncos at +3 today/sunday, I'm having a a hard time understanding carrying an 80/20 position from a risk management position.
Then the books are in the position of taking a position, and hoping for an outcome, just like the customers. Hoping for an outcome is not what they excel in and get paid for. Managing risk, and collecting a risk-free fee is a better and more predictable business model.
Vegas isn't in the business of losing money.

This is slightly disconcerting.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,277
where I was last at
, it's almost impossible to make the numbers 50/50 because there are only a limited number of point spreads to shift around.

to Banned by

I understand the points in your post, but to the one above (bolded)
this game has pretty much been Pats -3 all week, with reportedly most of the money going to the Pats. And I understand a perfectly balanced book might be impossible, but there's a big difference between 50/50 (and locking in a profit) holding an unbalanced 55/45 (which if lost would negate the vig) and being exposed to 80/20 and hoping Peyton gets hot in the 4th quarter.

To dbn

the good long-term business model is taking the risk-free return and letting the customer sweat out the 4th quarter.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,111
You are really oversimplying things, though, and assuming a simple business model different than their actual one.

As noted above, moving the line is not itself risk-free---it creates a zone for double-losses. And it risks that you've created a huge amount of late action at an unfavorable spread. Did you read the book (or see the movie) Bringing Down the House? The entire betting approach is premised on betting more heavily when odds slightly more favorable to you---which is the dynamic you're proposing they should set up by moving the line. The riskier move for them may well be to bear those potential downsides.

As well, you're assuming they never want to take a position---I don't think that is true. They want to take a position where the expected return from the position is higher than other options they have, I suspect, as that's the economically rational action. To put that another way, one has to argue they don't understand their business (which is not credible) for your theory on their business model to be correct, given their actions.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,991
“@RyanHannable: According to @FiveThirtyEight, Patriots are the least likely team left to win the Super Bowl at 19 percent https://t.co/9ZBHcHZ3aG

You will never guess who has the SECOND best odds.
 
, it's almost impossible to make the numbers 50/50 because there are only a limited number of point spreads to shift around.

to Banned by

I understand the points in your post, but to the one above (bolded)
this game has pretty much been Pats -3 all week, with reportedly most of the money going to the Pats. And I understand a perfectly balanced book might be impossible, but there's a big difference between 50/50 (and locking in a profit) holding an unbalanced 55/45 (which if lost would negate the vig) and being exposed to 80/20 and hoping Peyton gets hot in the 4th quarter.

To dbn

the good long-term business model is taking the risk-free return and letting the customer sweat out the 4th quarter.
I hear you, Bankshot, trust me. That's why I brought it up to him and I'm only going off what he told me. And he wasn't the type of guy that would be good with follow up questions that objected to his initial answer.

I can only reiterate and say I wouldn't be surprised if it's not really 80%. And after you calculate the future bets and money lines if NE wins the payout may be a lot less than it appears. Besides, do you think moving it to -4 will make a huge difference? What about -5 or -5.5? At some point you're getting into SBXIII if you move it too much.

So my answer to you is "I don't know". I totally see where you're coming from. And hey, maybe their oddsmakes are extremely confident Denver covers. But at some point, Vegas has to take a position and I'd be shocked if the numbers are as simple as 80/20 when it's all calculated.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
18,277
where I was last at
You are really oversimplying things, though, and assuming a simple business model different than their actual one.

As noted above, moving the line is not itself risk-free---it creates a zone for double-losses. And it risks that you've created a huge amount of late action at an unfavorable spread. Did you read the book (or see the movie) Bringing Down the House? The entire betting approach is premised on betting more heavily when odds slightly more favorable to you---which is the dynamic you're proposing they should set up by moving the line. The riskier move for them may well be to bear those potential downsides.

As well, you're assuming they never want to take a position---I don't think that is true. They want to take a position where the expected return from the position is higher than other options they have, I suspect, as that's the economically rational action. To put that another way, one has to argue they don't understand their business (which is not credible) for your theory on their business model to be correct, given their actions.
I understand middles, they happen, and have happened for years.

its possible they expect late Denver money coming in to close the gap, or maybe they got the line and projected money flows wrong. Its art not science.

I just find the reported 80/20 mix interesting, as the possible exposure to an adverse outcome is high..
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,088
“@RyanHannable: According to @FiveThirtyEight, Patriots are the least likely team left to win the Super Bowl at 19 percent https://t.co/9ZBHcHZ3aG

You will never guess who has the SECOND best odds.

538 puts enormous weight into how the Patriots finished the season. The Patriots were as high as 33% chance to win the Super Bowl during the season by their "calculations" and now are down to 19%. They pay no attention to things like the fact that Edelman and Gronkowski were out during losses and now are back. I think they had the KC game as pretty close to 50-50.

It's all part of their incredibly determined and successful effort to destroy their reputation.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,243
538 puts enormous weight into how the Patriots finished the season. The Patriots were as high as 33% chance to win the Super Bowl during the season by their "calculations" and now are down to 19%. They pay no attention to things like the fact that Edelman and Gronkowski were out during losses and now are back. I think they had the KC game as pretty close to 50-50.

It's all part of their incredibly determined and successful effort to destroy their reputation.

Your last sentence says it all. They killed their brand. Now 538 is just a bunch of dipshits doing fraudulent math.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
17,590
Philadelphia
You are really oversimplying things, though, and assuming a simple business model different than their actual one.

As noted above, moving the line is not itself risk-free---it creates a zone for double-losses. And it risks that you've created a huge amount of late action at an unfavorable spread. Did you read the book (or see the movie) Bringing Down the House? The entire betting approach is premised on betting more heavily when odds slightly more favorable to you---which is the dynamic you're proposing they should set up by moving the line. The riskier move for them may well be to bear those potential downsides.

As well, you're assuming they never want to take a position---I don't think that is true. They want to take a position where the expected return from the position is higher than other options they have, I suspect, as that's the economically rational action. To put that another way, one has to argue they don't understand their business (which is not credible) for your theory on their business model to be correct, given their actions.
I think a big factor here is that many books opened at Patriots -2.5. In general, books really don't like to be on both sides of 3.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
To dbn

the good long-term business model is taking the risk-free return and letting the customer sweat out the 4th quarter.
I'm not sure how the customers' sweat factors into it. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, so here is a simplified model using made up numbers just to clarify the point.

I don't know what the typical vig is, let's say 10%. If you are a casino and always got the money to balance, you make 10% every game. If you are a casino and think you are smarter than the average bettor so you skew the spread at times to try to outsmart them, but in reality you are no better or worse than the average bettor, you sometimes make, say, 15%, sometimes only 5%, but over time you average the same 10%. If, however, you the casino are actually better than the average bettor, then trying to outsmart them maybe changes those numbers to, say, sometimes 18%, sometimes 8%. Now, over time, your return averages 13%.

The key I guess is to increase your profits by increasing your risk in each individual game, but as long as you keep that game-to-game risk small compared to the volume of betting over many years of many, many games, that risk asymptotically approaches zero and your long-term profits increase.

Then again, I'm neither a bookie nor an economist, so this could all be hogwash.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
5,476
Your last sentence says it all. They killed their brand. Now 538 is just a bunch of dipshits doing fraudulent math.
Seconded. I tuned out when they didn't understand the Ideal Gas Law. Being in a group with "Bill Nye the Science Fraud" isn't really a way to enhance a quality/insight-focused brand position.
 

Hagios

lurker
Dec 15, 2007
672
538 puts enormous weight into how the Patriots finished the season. The Patriots were as high as 33% chance to win the Super Bowl during the season by their "calculations" and now are down to 19%. They pay no attention to things like the fact that Edelman and Gronkowski were out during losses and now are back. I think they had the KC game as pretty close to 50-50.

It's all part of their incredibly determined and successful effort to destroy their reputation.
I realize the overriding goal of the rest of our lives as Patriots fans is to bring down everyone who was against the Patriots during deflate gate, but come on. It's an ELO based model, which is a perfectly respectable way to do rankings and probably better than the standard "Power Rankings" that most newspapers do. And 538 does discuss the weaknesses of their models including factors like injuries.
 

sonofgodcf

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
670
The toilet.
I'm not sure how the customers' sweat factors into it. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, so here is a simplified model using made up numbers just to clarify the point.

I don't know what the typical vig is, let's say 10%. If you are a casino and always got the money to balance, you make 10% every game. If you are a casino and think you are smarter than the average bettor so you skew the spread at times to try to outsmart them, but in reality you are no better or worse than the average bettor, you sometimes make, say, 15%, sometimes only 5%, but over time you average the same 10%. If, however, you the casino are actually better than the average bettor, then trying to outsmart them maybe changes those numbers to, say, sometimes 18%, sometimes 8%. Now, over time, your return averages 13%.

The key I guess is to increase your profits by increasing your risk in each individual game, but as long as you keep that game-to-game risk small compared to the volume of betting over many years of many, many games, that risk asymptotically approaches zero and your long-term profits increase.

Then again, I'm neither a bookie nor an economist, so this could all be hogwash.
In your first scenario, they would only make 5%. They only collect the vig on the losers. 5% is great return, but I think they want to make more, even if it increases their risk. Things like moving the line strategically, parlays and future bets will do just that.
 

semsox

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 14, 2004
1,518
Charlottesville
I realize the overriding goal of the rest of our lives as Patriots fans is to bring down everyone who was against the Patriots during deflate gate, but come on. It's an ELO based model, which is a perfectly respectable way to do rankings and probably better than the standard "Power Rankings" that most newspapers do. And 538 does discuss the weaknesses of their models including factors like injuries.
Agree with this 100%. 538 is fairly transparent to the flaws of their models, and if you're looking for a model that doesn't have the respective AFC teams as #2 and #4 in likelihood to win the SB, then you're probably looking at a shitty model. The overwhelming consensus is that the two NFC teams are more complete and 'better' than either of the AFC opponents, which is all the model reflects. If the numbers were slightly different, and NE were predicted to win at Denver, then they would be #2 in 538's model, and Denver would slot down to #4.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
11,088
I realize the overriding goal of the rest of our lives as Patriots fans is to bring down everyone who was against the Patriots during deflate gate, but come on. It's an ELO based model, which is a perfectly respectable way to do rankings and probably better than the standard "Power Rankings" that most newspapers do. And 538 does discuss the weaknesses of their models including factors like injuries.
It may be more respectable than meaningful. I'm not sure why the fact they admit to it being flawed should prevent me from criticizing it as flawed but whatever.
 

Carlos Cowart

Land of Enchantment
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
5,319
undacheese
Flawed? They've got Pats/ Broncos at 41/59% to win.

I wish they'd show confidence in their models by taking action on Pats +6
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
45,268
Sorry, is 80% referring to the total money bet or the total number of bets?

Im thinking of doing a 4-way, 13 point teaser, just cuz I'm feeling frisky. Taking the Pats, Panthers, under in the Pats game and over in the other.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The books think this line should be like Denver -1 or pickem by the numbers but got buried with public money, as they expected, from the get go. They are going to need Denver and they know it, moving to 3.5 is just going to get heavier sharp money on Denver at a better price so it's a hard call.

Not taking a lot out of it because the Pats are sort of an impossible team to power rank right now.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
5,669
Sorry, is 80% referring to the total money bet or the total number of bets?

Im thinking of doing a 4-way, 13 point teaser, just cuz I'm feeling frisky. Taking the Pats, Panthers, under in the Pats game and over in the other.
Ha - I did this bet but substituted in the Cardinals.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
11,967
Somewhere
Your last sentence says it all. They killed their brand. Now 538 is just a bunch of dipshits doing fraudulent math.
Honestly, the struggles at 538 were fairly predictable -- inevitable, even.

Silver made his bones on predicting an event that happens to be very predictable based on the available data: the presidential election.

Turns out that sports (and other things) are much more difficult to predict.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,006
BB's a football life is on now. Completely forgot about the McD Denver loss.

Bad juju. Fuck you NFL Network.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
23,111
Honestly, the struggles at 538 were fairly predictable -- inevitable, even.

Silver made his bones on predicting an event that happens to be very predictable based on the available data: the presidential election.

Turns out that sports (and other things) are much more difficult to predict.
I don't even think the primary problem the site has is mediocre predictions (though I agree with you that there are many of those, and that those are bad). To me, the worst thing is that the site is boring in what they take on and, even worse, superficial in almost everything they do. I'm fully willing to read complex stuff on the web, and they seem to be operating under a restriction that they complete their analysis in 1000 words or less. It results in superficial, crappy analysis that even on the first read many of us here can identify is missing key variables. That isn't how Nate Silver made his name, and it isn't compelling.

Unsurprising for the Worldwide Leader, but still a real waste of an opportunity. Here's hoping Silver follows sports guy 33 to HBO and gets a platform befitting his intelligence.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Honestly, the struggles at 538 were fairly predictable -- inevitable, even.

Silver made his bones on predicting an event that happens to be very predictable based on the available data: the presidential election.

Turns out that sports (and other things) are much more difficult to predict.
He is screwing up the politics too this year, operating entirely out of his area of competence and offering precisely the kind of BS that he properly crushed the mainstream mediots for serving up 4 years ago.

And his 538 crew's fumble rate analysis in connection with DFG was an absolute disgrace.
 

nivek

lurker
Dec 20, 2015
15
Watching it as well. Love when he shows the Soprano tape to the team. Do you think he had made any remarks regarding the flapping of the gums by Denver this week? Can't guaranteed a win tomorrow, but I feel so much more confident with Bill on the sidelines.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
7,243
Duval
Watching this as well. Do Your Job comes on at 10 so set the DVR if you don't have it already.

Watching again, especially the drubbing and subsequent sideline conversation with TB, I'm reminded how much importance BB places on mental toughness. I wonder if there's a correlation to this and his obsession with drafting team captains.
Man, that '09 team sucked. Compared to last year you can tell how much Bill hated coaching that team.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
11,006
Watching it as well. Love when he shows the Soprano tape to the team. Do you think he had made any remarks regarding the flapping of the gums by Denver this week? Can't guaranteed a win tomorrow, but I feel so much more confident with Bill on the sidelines.
Watching this as well. Do Your Job comes on at 10 so set the DVR if you don't have it already.

Watching again, especially the drubbing and subsequent sideline conversation with TB, I'm reminded how much importance BB places on mental toughness. I wonder if there's a correlation to this and his obsession with drafting team captains.
Man, that '09 team sucked. Compared to last year you can tell how much Bill hated coaching that team.
Yup. Beer is good.
 

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
13,779
Eugene, OR
Welp, to make sure that the best team wins, apparently it is going to be almost 50 degrees with no precipitation during the game tomorrow.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,243
The Pats are going to kill these guys. Manning can't throw the ball and that is kind of important in the modern NFL.

I thought KC was going to be a dangerous game for The Pats and good ole Billy and Tommy won easy.
 

86spike

Currently enjoying "Arli$$"
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2002
25,082
Procrasti Nation
I've been thinking a lot about a prediction on this game and as the week has worn on, I find myself becoming more and more confident in a Denver win.

I think it will be a close game and just like last week, the biggest key will be Manning's Offense avoiding turnovers and letting the Defense take care of business. It's kind of an obvious statement, but if Peyton throws several picks or Denver loses some fumbles, NE will probably win. If they protect the ball, I like Denver with a final score around 26-24.

Here's my reasoning:

General Home Field Advantage:

NE under Brady is only 2-6 in Denver. The altitude plays a part, but so does the loud crowd when NE is trying to run a hurry up attack and communicate. Natural grass as opposed to turf is another factor which I'll detail below.

Denver On Defense:

(This is wordy since it's the key match up in the game, IMO)

Football Outsiders ranks Denver as the year's #1 Defense. Not only that, but they are tied for 3rd toughest schedule when accounting for the strength of the offenses they played. So they faced a gauntlet schedule and fared better than any other team.

Denver will be very hard to run against and I don't think NE will even try it much.

NE's passing offense has all of its key players back (we can't say the entire offense is healthy since your top 2 RBs are out, of course) and I expect several long drives and multiple TDs. That said, I expect Denver's D to rush 4 (Tom Brady, may I introduce you to a gentleman named Malik Von WareWolfe... Who am I kidding, there's little gentle about him) and then flood the flats in an attempt to disrupt NE's precision catch-and-run pass plays. This won't work every time, Edelman and Gronk will have some big plays along the way, but they are going to make things tough and Brady may need to hold the ball a little longer than he wants as receivers try to get open.

On the subject of getting open, I predict that Edelman will have a harder time getting open than he did last week. There are three reasons for my hunch: (a) Chris Harris Jr. is healed up significantly and will be covering him; Harris is possibly the best CB in the game at covering slot receivers (b) Edelman will be feeling more foot pain than he did last week when he played his first full speed game and went all out; 7 days later he could be more sore than he was after a long lay off and a gradual build up in workouts; if he can't cut and pivot without some pain, Harris will have a little more ease (but again, JE will make some plays, I'm not predicting he's a disaster (c) natural grass (more on that next).

A few days ago I saw an interesting couple of stats about NE playing on natural grass over the last few years. In the last 3 seasons and playoffs, NE's record playing on grass is 7-8. In addition, 4 of the 5 stadiums where Brady has a losing record in his career have natural grass (the fifth is SEA and that was only one game played). Those stadiums are Miami, KC, Carolina, and Denver and Brady's career numbers in those games is 10-17. Now, I'm sure a part of this is just the simple fact that it is harder to win on the road, but I also wonder if the precision passing attack that relies of timing and exact route running might be harder to execute on a surface that is not perfectly even like Modern turf surfaces are. Tomorrow might be a little muddy and there might be a little rain late in the game and I think NE will have some drives killed by failure to make the timing plays work. It won't keep NE out of the end zone, but it should lower the amount of drives where they score.

The game will probably be close in the 4th quarter and fatigue for NE due to the altitude will creep in as it often does.

All of those factors have me feeling confident that Denver's #1 Defense has what it takes to keep the team in the game and allow the offense to squeak by.

Denver On Offense:

No one mistakes this offense for the laser show Manning led a few years back. The passing game will not feature long completions or balls fit into triple coverage against all odds. Manning is not that guy. I expect to see the same approach employed last week vs Pitt: run the ball, employ a deliberate pace and minimize risk taking. Denver stalled out and had to settle for several redzone FGs last week (and many other games this year) and I expect to see that happen some tomorrow. But I think they will fare a bit better in both the run game and in converting TDs instead of FGs. Again, going by the Football Outsiders defensive rankings, Pitt had the #8 Defense and faced the 16th toughest schedule. In comparison, NE had the #15 Defense, but faced the 32nd (last place) toughest schedule.

I also suspect that Manning will be ready to shift into a hurry up attack in the event that NE builds a 2 score lead with time ticking. They never had to do that last week as the score was close all game, but if needed there is another gear. That gear may not work and will come with higher risk of turnovers, but if they're trailing, I expect to see a faster pace than what Manning has shown since coming back from the injury. That said, Denver's conservative offense succeeded vs Pitt and I think it will be able to do the same vs NE and the Denver Defense will handle the rest.

Special Teams is always an X-factor but kick-offs are seldom returned in Denver (easy to boom it past the EZ) and I'd say both squads have solid enough ST units to make that an predictable advantage either way.

Coaching favors the Pats. Kubiak has not shown any sign of ingenuity or creativity, but I think he's got the team focused and motivated much more successfully than John Fox did. The best case scenario for the Broncos when it comes to coaching is for the game plan to work and for there to be little need for big adjustments.

So, that took my 30 mins to type, and I feel better now.

I think Denver takes it tomorrow in a close contest and I'd say I'm feeling about 60/40 that I'm right.

Or maybe NE skullfucks them the way SEA did in the SB a few years ago. (Shrug)
 

GeorgeCostanza

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2009
5,949
Found in central mass
Good luck tomorrow Spike, and I know you won't take this personally but I do hope your team gets skull fucked, rawdog too!

Regarding Jules and pain. If he's sore at all I would imagine that come game time, between the adrenaline and pharmaceuticals he won't feel a god damned thing.

I think the best possible thing for your Broncos tomorrow is if Peypey takes a seat.

Love ya buddy!
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,726
Mansfield MA
I think Denver takes it tomorrow in a close contest and I'd say I'm feeling about 60/40 that I'm right.

Or maybe NE skullfucks them the way SEA did in the SB a few years ago. (Shrug)
This is kind of how I see it. There's a reasonable chance that the Patriots blow out Denver (and, IMO, little chance of a blowout Broncos win) if the Broncos turn the ball over a couple times early and the New England offense is clicking, but if it's a low-scoring contest and the Broncos keep hanging around, it starts to favor the home team. The Broncos wore down the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Patriots defenses late, and the Pats can't run the ball at all. As a Patriots fan, I'm not going to feel great if they're clinging to a one-score lead in the fourth quarter.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
9,964
Santa Monica, CA
The Pats are fully healthy for the first time in a long time, the offense was effective last week, and the last time these two teams played, the Pats had a 14-point lead late, until no less than 4 egregious calls went against them and they suffered a devastating injury.

They have to lay an egg tomorrow to lose to Denver. It's possible, but not likely.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
You should have, it's a good post.

86: thanks for sharing those thoughts. I hope that you are wrong, of course, but it's great to hear rational thoughts from fans of the other team. After all, it's a discussion board, not a group-think board!
 

Cabin Mirror

Member
SoSH Member
This is kind of how I see it. There's a reasonable chance that the Patriots blow out Denver (and, IMO, little chance of a blowout Broncos win) if the Broncos turn the ball over a couple times early and the New England offense is clicking, but if it's a low-scoring contest and the Broncos keep hanging around, it starts to favor the home team. The Broncos wore down the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Patriots defenses late, and the Pats can't run the ball at all. As a Patriots fan, I'm not going to feel great if they're clinging to a one-score lead in the fourth quarter.
I agree that if it is close late, then I think Denver finds a way to win. Both teams are excellent, but if the Pats D is gassed, it's good night. I would be severely disappointed, but can live with it if it's Denver's defense that proves to be the difference. That unit is really freaking good. As long as it's not some bullshit call(s) that seals the deal.


That said, never bet against Tom M.F. Brady.
 

Cabin Mirror

Member
SoSH Member
This is kind of how I see it. There's a reasonable chance that the Patriots blow out Denver (and, IMO, little chance of a blowout Broncos win) if the Broncos turn the ball over a couple times early and the New England offense is clicking, but if it's a low-scoring contest and the Broncos keep hanging around, it starts to favor the home team. The Broncos wore down the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Patriots defenses late, and the Pats can't run the ball at all. As a Patriots fan, I'm not going to feel great if they're clinging to a one-score lead in the fourth quarter.
I agree that if it is close late, then I think Denver finds a way to win. Both teams are excellent, but if the Pats D is gassed, it's good night. I would be severely disappointed, but can live with it if it's Denver's defense that proves to be the difference. That unit is really freaking good. As long as it's not some bullshit call(s) that seals the deal.


That said, never bet against Tom M.F. Brady.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
29,627
South Boston
“@RyanHannable: According to @FiveThirtyEight, Patriots are the least likely team left to win the Super Bowl at 19 percent https://t.co/9ZBHcHZ3aG

You will never guess who has the SECOND best odds.
Throwing darts at a flipping coin to see if you can get it to land on 00 on the roulette wheel is more accurate than anything 538 has to say about anything other than election outcomes after a shitload of polling. They're repeating everything as farce at this point.
 

koufax32

He'll cry if he wants to...
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2006
7,243
Duval
A think lay an egg is a bit much. I could very easily see the oline get overwhelmed again. One sack turns into a strip sack and Denver gets a short field could lead to a cheap 6. I think NE wins 5 or 6 out of 10 of these games. If Denver wins it'll probably be a turnover or two while also keeping NE to only 14-17 points.

Is anyone else worried that BB takes a sit back and bend but don't break approach to Manning? I think it would be a grave mistake as that's what Manning's passing game has devolved into anyway. I would hope a more aggressive strategy is part of the get them out of what they like to do best game plan.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,765
I think those grass stats are bogus. Didn't Brady play on grass for the first 5 years of his career? He also played pretty well in Arizona last year during the super bowl.

I think 95%+ of outcomes tomorrow fall within Denver by 3 to NE by 30. That's a really good place to be as a Pats fan. They should win this game 80% of the time.

All year I've thought Denver was strong defense but a smoke and mirrors offense. Ultimately I've consistently underestimated them in terms of win/loss record but I watched a lot of those games and they were almost never impressive wins. When it comes down to it, 17 games isn't a big sample. I think a lot of those wins were lucky and unsustainable. I don't think they're very good. Defensively I think this game is going to look like the one last year where the DEN pass rush disappeared and Brady carved them up for a big win.

Maybe I'm underestimating them one more time but I doubt it. NE by a TD or more.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,243
An ex-girlfriend of mine had an uncle who worked in the back offices at Caesars Sportsbook and we had a conversation about this once. Here is what he told me...





3. Sportsbooks can get burned by shifting the line. For example, $10M gets bet on NE at -3 on Monday and the books feel its too much action that way (especially if it's the sharps money), so they move it to -4 on Tuesday...money keeps coming in on NE so they push it to -4.5. That forces a lot of action on Denver. That's good, right? Not if the Pats win by 4. That is their nightmare scenario and it happened in SB XIII. The line opened at Pitt -3.5 and all the early money went there. It moved to -4 for a short time and then to -4.5 by kickoff. Nearly all the late money came in on Dallas. The Steelers won 35-31 and it's still referred to as "Black Sunday" in Vegas.



Edit - Spelling
That's a great story, thanks for telling it. I had no idea