Am I mis-remembering that Modell was losing money from horseracing or gambling debts or both?
The six Super Bowls with Brady have been pretty weird. The first five all started slow and then ended as barnburners, with the Patriots' opponents scoring big TDs in the last two minutes of the game. The Seahwaks game sort of broke the mold. It still had that back-and-forth fireworks kind of stretch except it was in the second quarter. The Carolina Super Bowl was crazy in that it happened in both the second quarter and the fourth quarter.
The stat that's amazing is that in the six Brady Super Bowls, the combined margin of victory is 20 points total. I don't think it's a surprise that the Patriots have never really dominated in a Super Bowl. I think it's really hard to be a dominant team that crushes everyone in any given NFL year and also be a consistent team in the way the Patriots have been consistent. Drafting late, playing late, dealing with the cap year after year and staying on top. There is always the chance that there's going to be a hot team or an it team that has the pedal to the metal in any given year and can reach that same level or higher. Even in the 16-0 season, there were some very close games that could have been losses. And the Patriots didn't exactly blow out either the Jags or the Chargers in the playoffs that year.
The stat that's amazing is that in the six Brady Super Bowls, the combined margin of victory is 20 points total. I don't think it's a surprise that the Patriots have never really dominated in a Super Bowl. I think it's really hard to be a dominant team that crushes everyone in any given NFL year and also be a consistent team in the way the Patriots have been consistent. Drafting late, playing late, dealing with the cap year after year and staying on top. There is always the chance that there's going to be a hot team or an it team that has the pedal to the metal in any given year and can reach that same level or higher. Even in the 16-0 season, there were some very close games that could have been losses. And the Patriots didn't exactly blow out either the Jags or the Chargers in the playoffs that year.
I caught a bit of Felger and Mazz today making suspicious-toned musings about how the betting line was staying at Pats minus 3 despite rumors that the bulk of the wagers in so far were in favor of the Pats. The bolded above was the first thing that crossed my mind.
I just refuse to believe that narrow margins in the past dictate future liklihood of a tight game. It's not like the Patriots design to keep the game close. That's not how it works.
The game on Sunday might be close, but that's because they are comparable teams. Not because the Patriots have some intrinsic need to keep Super Bowls within 3 points. If there are bettors out there that think the line would be wrong if this was any other game, but because the Patriots have had close games in the past they can't make up mind, they're probably shitty gamblers.
The game on Sunday might be close, but that's because they are comparable teams. Not because the Patriots have some intrinsic need to keep Super Bowls within 3 points. If there are bettors out there that think the line would be wrong if this was any other game, but because the Patriots have had close games in the past they can't make up mind, they're probably shitty gamblers.
Well, watching the Pats, it sort of is how it works though at least in part. Not perfectly, and not because the design is to 'stay close' for its own benefit, but because they play differently based on the score--they go to prevent when they are up a couple scores, increasing the chance the other team scores at least once; they go to ball-control on offense in similar situation when they have the ball, reducing chances of a turnover or of them scoring again. The Pats-Eagles Super Bowl could have been a larger spread, but Pats approached the end-game this way by design.
Why Hasn’t the Super Bowl 51 Spread Moved Yet?
Summary. The bulk of the public money is on the Pats, but the public typically doesn't move the line much, if at all. We don't really know where the sharp money is landing yet but could soon find out.
That article is a bit of a straddle:
Although Cooley maintains that there needs to be some sharp money on the Patriots in order to justify another line move, that’s not always true. So many casual bettors wager on the Super Bowl that sportsbooks are increasingly willing to adjust their spread based on public money. We saw a prime example of that last year when public money caused the Panthers to move from -3.5 to -4.5 in Super Bowl 50 despite several sharp money indicators on the Broncos. In fact, public money pushed that line as high at Carolina -6 before sharps hammered Denver.
I heard this somewhere, and I apologize I can't remember where, but the gist is that Vegas is keeping the line low as a hedge against the futures bets placed on the Falcons when their odds were enormous.
I have no idea if it's true or how to verify it, but there was supposedly quite a bit of futures action on Atlanta, and with odds getting as high as 100-1 to 150-1 early in the season, they've got a lot of money riding on New England winning the game.
To hedge, they're keeping the line artificially low so as to encourage betting on the Patriots, which will help ease the sting if Atlanta does win.
Again, don't know if it's true or how to verify it, but figured it was worth noting in case it is.
I have no idea if it's true or how to verify it, but there was supposedly quite a bit of futures action on Atlanta, and with odds getting as high as 100-1 to 150-1 early in the season, they've got a lot of money riding on New England winning the game.
To hedge, they're keeping the line artificially low so as to encourage betting on the Patriots, which will help ease the sting if Atlanta does win.
Again, don't know if it's true or how to verify it, but figured it was worth noting in case it is.
That's interesting. It may very well be true. It just feels to me like - even with those huge odds - the sheer volume of SB spread bets placed these two weeks would make the volume of future bets almost insignificant. I'm obviously not an expert though.
This may not be quite the right thread for this, but . . .
In the last few weeks, Brady has made some cryptic and emotional comments about his parents, their not being able to attend games this year, and things of that ilk. While he's always spoken highly of them, it seems to have a different tone. Has anyone heard or seen anything about either one's health?
EDIT: thanks to hoothehoo below
In the last few weeks, Brady has made some cryptic and emotional comments about his parents, their not being able to attend games this year, and things of that ilk. While he's always spoken highly of them, it seems to have a different tone. Has anyone heard or seen anything about either one's health?
EDIT: thanks to hoothehoo below
Last edited:
I don't think this is true. A Vegas guy was on Felger and Mazz last week and they said that more people bet on the Browns to win the SB than the Falcons. The number bet on Atlanta wasn't large at all.
That has to be true. The Super Bowl is the biggest gambling day of the year. Even if the books were at a potential loss of 100s of thousands of dollars on the futures bet, the Super Bowl gets millions of dollars of wagers. It's hard to believe every gambling house settled on -3 because they needed to hedge a smattering of futures wagers.
Yeah there's not a lot of future money on Atlanta. Its not really the same as last year either because they opened on a key number this year. There's not much reason for books to come off the 3 right now. More likely to see more -3 with juice day of game then go to 3.5 IMO. All 3.5 is going to do is get Falcons money that leaves the books exposed if the Pats win by 3. Also no real reason for the sharp Atlanta money to be betting yet, line isnt going to 2.5.
Someone else mentioned this to me and I'll ask the same question because they couldn't remember. The same 'number' and the same 'amount' are two very different things. I find it hard I believe Cleveland had more action in total $ than Atlanta, but it wouldn't shock me to find that more individual bets were out on the browns from people taking flyers for $10 on a huge long shot.
Just rewatching the end of SB49, and the play before the Butler pick, the Seahawks have two WR stacked in the same way as their final play. Browner gets the exact same jam on his receiver, but Revis doesn't break on Baldwin at all. If they'd thrown the ball on that play it would have been an easy TD.
Good call. They clearly were never throwing on that play but he could have continued across the end zone for an easy TD, similar to his previous one.
Just watching that, too, and I still get nervous and I still get this visceral feeling at the end of just "FUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU." I want that again, times ten. F U, NFL. Please, please - One. More.
I would be very satisfied with just one more. SB 49 for me was more about continuing Brady's legacy as the goat, sort of made up for in my mind the 2 losses to the Giants. This one...this one would cement Brady's (and BB's) legacy. I mean, sure I would take another one in the next couple of years, but if this is the last one, then I am good with it.
I'm satisfied as it is, honestly. I just wanted that one more and got it in the most spectacular fashion I will probably ever see. Brady and Belichick are already the best in my eyes, so what more could I ask for? I also consider winning that SB to also be a big FU to Roger and the league, given the timing.
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see a win this Sunday, for all the reasons mentioned. The more the better, of course! But I'd get over a loss relatively quickly, barring some BS finish or something like that. Atlanta is a very good team and Matt ain't Eli.
Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see a win this Sunday, for all the reasons mentioned. The more the better, of course! But I'd get over a loss relatively quickly, barring some BS finish or something like that. Atlanta is a very good team and Matt ain't Eli.
I've been trying to convince myself this is how I feel.
But I still think I'll be a basket case Monday if they lose.
I don't doubt your sincerity but I said essentially the same thing before the last one and now I'm pretty urgent about this one. I think that the events of every season provide new reasons for feeling that way. No doubt the DG comeuppance angle is unique, but I have a feeling that if we are fortunate enough to be in this spot next year or the following year, that one or more of us will be posting similarly.
I don't doubt that at all. I think for me, the DFG angle is pretty huge. I guess what I mean is that since all of the "-gates", the Patriots have been under a microscope. I have to think that every team they play, all of the owners, and the league office have been watching them very closely to make sure they "play within the rules". Winning this SB would be nice so that there should be no doubt. And you are right, the next one would be just as nice.
You know, back to celebrating what is, the fact that we are even having this discussion is the ultimate "what is". How many fans of other teams can argue with each other over which SB win is better?
Yep, I was thinking the same. I posted on a friend's Facebook page that I am hoping for a less dramatic Super Bowl win this time. Putting aside how entitled that is, the fact that we are in a position to discuss the kind of wins we might experience is pretty ridiculous. Especially when you consider what the franchise looked like for much of its history.
Yep. I think we are all hoping that, but somewhat afraid to even mention the thought. It'd be nice though.
Last edited:
Stop? Fuck that... win all the motherfucking trophies. Every. Last. One. At least until BB and TB12 are gone. This is part of the reason I don't really get the "One More" mantra. So what? Am I to believe that if they win SBLI Brady, Belichick, and Kraft are all gonna look at each other and be like, "Ok, 5 is good enough"?? I don't think so, Homey don't play that.
I hope Josh and Jimmy G win at least three for New England after Bill and Tom call it a day (with Bill retaining GM duties if he wants).
I've interpreted that to mean "One More...for now." After all, they can't win more than one this season. Next year they can use "One More, Again" or Another One."
5 is not enough but it will suffice on 2/5/17.
Yeah, that is a smokin’ hot take that was dissected here in multiple threads during and after the game. For years before that game, when I was coaching HS football, we had that discussion many a time-when is a bad time to call a time out. We all agreed that if in the same situation, we would not call timeout. In fact, we had the exact same situation in a game the year prior to SB49. Time winding down, opposing team marches down the field quickly and gets inside our 5 yard line. Our head coach wanted to call time out so our defense could regroup. Despite our objections, he did, and we lost. It gave the opposing team plenty of time to come up with a play to beat us.
+1. Despite my avatar(too childishly superstitious to change it until after the game), I'm completely weary of revenge tours and enemies lists. I wish the primary narrative for Sunday was the quest for number 5, Brady and Belichick standing alone in history. Sampling the first couple of days of build up, it's largely Goodell/deflategate, with a little bit of Trump thown in for good measure. Tuning out of media build up until the game for the most part. And to sure, it is the owners and their soulless sock puppet who have driven this.
Why don't you contact BB and offer to pitch in on the coaching staff instead of sitting back and playing Monday morning QB? I'm sure he has need for a great football mind like yours.
The morality play is the one where you leave Welker exposed over the middle, throw it a little high, and make the DB decide whether to bash his brains in to get the incompletion or take the clean wrap-up tackle, right?
(...so let's celebrate that he's no longer on the field taking hits...)
Just watched the first half of XLIX. Still furious they gave Seattle the spot on the 3rd and 6 on their first TD drive. He was short. Also still can't believe Seattle drove 80 yards in 31 seconds for a TD. Every time I watch the Patriots 2 minute drive, and they are on the Seattle 40 or 35 with about 40 seconds left, I just can't believe Seattle has enough time to drive the field.
You are going to get flamed, but I'll stick up for you. Im glad it worked out as it did obviously, but I still think not calling TO was modestly -EV. BB's genius showed up the prep and personnel decisions, not in letting the clock run.
Standard disclaimer, BB is the GOAT, etc, etc.
Maybe BB had information as the HC of the team on the sideline that we weren't privy to in our La-Z-Boys.
Disclaimer or not, it's the height of hubris for people to complain two years about a coaching decision that worked fantastically and resulted in a super bowl victory. I don't understand.
What it comes down to is whether one truly believes his conclusion that Seattle was rushing and in a bit of disarray and thus that this flipped the typical asessment of the situation. At the time, I wanted the TO and ultimately (with the benefit of seeing video of sideline, huddle, and hearing BB's explanation) still feel like it's a gutsy call, but one where we're betting on BB's experience and assessment. Which is typically a good bet.
Agreed. Everything had to go perfectly for the Seahawks to score in :31, and everything did.
- Ghost booms kickoff though end zone. If he pops it up to the 5, it's riskier, but they lose 5+ seconds.
- with :11 left, Pats give up a catch plus Arrington penalty gives Seattle an extra 15 yards. Without that they're at the Pats 25 with :06 left and kick a FG.
- With :06 left and Seattle at the 10 yard line, as Ed Reed pointed out on Inside the NFL the next week, in this situation the Ravens were coached to intentionally foul. Grab your receiver and hug them until the play is over. Sure, Seattle will get a 1st and goal at the 1, but with :01 left will they really gamble everything or take the sure points on a FG?