Super Bowl

Question

2011-2012 Playoffs: 31-17-0 &#x2B;331.12 units&#xD;&#xA;I had a brief write up with my thoughts, but I lost it. But in short, I will be on the Patriots in some capacity though I&#x2019;m still deciding how and how much I will be investing on New England. For as good as the Giants have looked in the playoffs, this is the same team we were talking about months ago who was on the verge of missing the playoffs. The Giants lost twice to Washington, lost to Seattle and lost to a Vick-less Eagles team. There is no denying that Eli has been in quite the zone in the playoffs and even the clinching game vs. Dallas (total 11 TD vs. 1 INT), but he also had a QB rating under 100 in more than half of his games this year. I could toss out pros and cons for siding with each team and likely won&#x2019;t change anyone&#x2019;s mind. I&#x2019;ll add some thoughts in the coming days as I get all my plays finalized.&#xD;&#xA;Leans: New England Patriots 1st quarter, New England Patriots 1st half, New England Patriots &#x2013;2.5

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

2011-2012 Playoffs: 31-17-0 &#x2B;331.12 units&#xD;&#xA;I had a brief write up with my thoughts, but I lost it. But in short, I will be on the Patriots in some capacity though I&#x2019;m still deciding how and how much I will be investing on New England. For as good as the Giants have looked in the playoffs, this is the same team we were talking about months ago who was on the verge of missing the playoffs. The Giants lost twice to Washington, lost to Seattle and lost to a Vick-less Eagles team. There is no denying that Eli has been in quite the zone in the playoffs and even the clinching game vs. Dallas (total 11 TD vs. 1 INT), but he also had a QB rating under 100 in more than half of his games this year. I could toss out pros and cons for siding with each team and likely won&#x2019;t change anyone&#x2019;s mind. I&#x2019;ll add some thoughts in the coming days as I get all my plays finalized.&#xD;&#xA;Leans: New England Patriots 1st quarter, New England Patriots 1st half, New England Patriots &#x2013;2.5

choiOi · Answer

Bama lost to LSU earlier in the season. In the NC game...they were a -3 and won. Pats lost SB and also as a fav earlier in the season and now still a -3 vs giants....I would not be surprise if late pats $$ come in to push this back up to -3.5 at the end of the week. GL.

Makaveli1 · Answer

[Quote: Originally Posted by SettleDownSpaz] &#xD;&#xA;2011-2012 Playoffs: 31-17-0 &#x2B;331.12 units&#xD;&#xA;I had a brief write up with my thoughts, but I lost it. But in short, I will be on the Patriots in some capacity though I&#x2019;m still deciding how and how much I will be investing on New England. For as good as the Giants have looked in the playoffs, this is the same team we were talking about months ago who was on the verge of missing the playoffs. The Giants lost twice to Washington, lost to Seattle and lost to a Vick-less Eagles team. There is no denying that Eli has been in quite the zone in the playoffs and even the clinching game vs. Dallas (total 11 TD vs. 1 INT), but he also had a QB rating under 100 in more than half of his games this year. I could toss out pros and cons for siding with each team and likely won&#x2019;t change anyone&#x2019;s mind. I&#x2019;ll add some thoughts in the coming days as I get all my plays finalized.&#xD;&#xA;Leans: New England Patriots 1st quarter, New England Patriots 1st half, New England Patriots &#x2013;2.5 &#xD;&#xA;[/Quote]&#xD;&#xA; You said it. There is an argument for each side and I think it is going to be a VERY good game. Siding with Pats here and besides the plus and minus factors on each side, this one is a gut play for me. BOL on your play SDS. Under 55 for me as well.

Louis_IV · Answer

Gl spazzer.  I&#39;m on the giants here.

bigkaptain · Answer

damn u and i have been on the same side through most the playoffs but opposite here. should b a good game. gl spaz

onebrokebloke · Answer

I&#x27;m not getting 2.5 at my book I&#x27;m getting 3 but it&#x27;s for &#x2B;105 with gmen at -115...everyone asks why is it still 3...well, look at the prices they&#x27;re getting enough money on both sides....&#xD;&#xA;The Giants beat a fading Dallas team to get in, Atlanta is simply awful away, a fading green Bay team, and SF gave that game to them (10 point off those fumbles)....&#xD;&#xA;the Patriots still are the bet -3 AT that price and I like the UNDER..the injury to Gronkowski has to have a point value of between 3-7 points, and considering the game earlier in the year the UNDER really is the proper bet; I&#x27;m a Pats fan so screw it give me -3 at &#x2B;105...that Pollard guy tore Brady&#x27;s ACL and basically took Gronk out of the super bowl...what a damn jinx&#xD;&#xA;GL....

FrankT55 · Answer

New England hasn&#x27;t beaten anyone with above 500 record till last week and they sholuld of lost, its not to often that a team, good team, wins the turnover battle 3-1 and loses, luck is involved with football, but that scenario doesn&#x27;t happen that often, giants are a talented team, odds makers are trying to fool the smarter betters into taking the pats by the way they made the line, smarter betters usually bet more money then the dumb fair weather better.  if the giants cover the books will make money trust me on that.  They could of opened the line at 2.5 and would of got a lot more even amounts of money, they want sharp, higher wagers on the pats cause they know the giants are the winning side.

FrankT55 · Answer

Oh and the myth that the books want 50 50 action so they can make the vig is horsecrap.

onebrokebloke · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;I agree with that...but they dont want it too heavy in one sides favor...impossible to get it exact.&#xD;&#xA;Odds now NE-3 &#x2B;105 NYG &#x2B;3 -125&#xD;&#xA;NE money line -125 NYG &#x2B;105&#xD;&#xA;O/U 54.5...at betus&#xD;&#xA;so it tells ya something, the Giants are&#x27;nt getting the respect you think TO WIN THE GAME...and the Gronkowski injury is probably what caused that .5 reduction in the O/U

Jose_Reyes · Answer

Good stuff Spaz.  BOL with your card.

Jimmag · Answer

with you

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

thanks everyone, appreciate both sides of the argument..

FrankT - Playing devil's advocate, one could question why would a team who has only beat 1 above-.500 team be favored over a team who just slayed the top two teams in their conference, beat the Pats earlier in the year and beat them last time these two teams met in the Super Bowl? I see both sides of it. Good luck with your plays on Sunday

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

I don&#x27;t put too much weight into trends/situational angles in the championship game as it&#x27;s a win or go home, but can&#x27;t ignore these numbers completely... &#xD;&#xA;Since 2010, the Pats are 8-1 SU in games following ones where Brady had a QB rating less than 100.  He finished with such a rating in last week&#x27;s AFC Championship game vs the Ravens.  In these games, Brady completed 66% of his passes, averaged 261 yards through the air, threw 21 touchdowns against 1 interception and the Pats averaged 33&#x2B; points per game.&#xD;&#xA;So, Brady comes in off a poor game vs the Ravens, looking to avenge a loss earlier in the year vs. the Giants and looking for revenge on a team who ruined the Pats perfect season.

runlagos · Answer

SDSI personally like the Pats first half play (I don&#x27;t like betting quarters).

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

Not to take anything away from the Giants postseason performance to this point, but when you dive into the box score, the Giants offensive output is on the decline as is their defensive production. In their first round game vs. Atlanta, they put forth a tremendous team effort and dominated the Falcons in every facet of the game. Next round @ Green Bay, the offense was again real good, and the defense was sharp, but also got an assist from a GB offense that looked completely out of sync. I’ll give credit where due, GB’s struggles was a direct result of the Giants D. Championship game @ SF, the offense took a step back. They were still good, but they weren’t as effective as the two previous games. I’ll recognize they played a better defense in SF, but if we are going to point that out, let’s also make note that they played a worse offense. However, despite playing an offense with less firepower than the Falcons and Packers, the defensive production also took a step back. Below are several key metrics that highlight the reduction in the Giants statistical production from game to game.

Vs. Atlanta

Sacks Allowed: 1

Passing TDs: 3

QB Rating: 129.3

Rushing Yards: 172

3^rd Down Conversions: 53%

Passing TDs Allowed: 0

Opposing QB Rating: 71.1

Rushing Yards Allowed: 64

Vs. Green Bay

Sacks Allowed: 1

Passing TDs: 3

QB Rating: 114.5

Rushing Yards: 95

3^rd Down Conversions: 50%

Passing TDs Allowed: 2

Opposing QB Rating: 78.5

Rushing Yards Allowed: 147

Vs. San Francisco

Sacks Allowed: 6

Passing TDs: 2

QB Rating: 82.3

Rushing Yards: 85

3^rd Down Conversions: 33%

Passing TDs Allowed: 2

Opposing QB Rating: 97.6

Rushing Yards Allowed: 150

From game to game, the Giants numbers were on par or down from the previous game in Sacks Allowed, TD Passes Thrown, QB Rating, Rushing Yards, Rushing Yards Allowed, 3^rd Down Efficiency, Opposing QB Rating and TD Passes Allowed. Again, I’ll recognize that SF was the best defense of the bunch, but don’t skirt around the fact that they were also the worst offense of the bunch. The stat that wasn’t highlighted above, but should be in focus is 3^rd down conversions and turnovers. The Giants held the Niners to 7% on third down conversions and forced 2 turnovers. However, they still managed to only win the game by three points, and likely we wouldn’t be talking about them if not for that fumble. So, while the actual production didn’t get worse, one could argue that if the Niners converted 2 more third downs or had one less turnover, the Giants would have lost. But I’m not here to play the "if" game or look back in hindsight. Fact is, NE ranks 4^th in the league in both 3^rd down conversions and turnovers, so one would expect that at least one of these stats are vastly improved from what SF mustered against the Giants defense.

While the stats seem to indicate a drop in production on the Giants’ side, there is no guarantee that this trend will continue. However, the Giants could be in trouble if Eli’s QB rating continues to slide and Brady comes in higher than where Alex Smith was. I’ve posted Brady’s numbers above on how he has fared over the last two years following a game with a sub-100 QB rating. Eli, on the other hand, has quite contrasting numbers. Over the last two years, in games following a sub-100 QB rating, Eli is 12-8 with a 62% completion %, has thrown on average for 261 yards, has thrown for 34 touchdowns vs. 21 interceptions and his team has averaged 22 points per game. Over the last two years, Eli has never exceeded a QB rating of 100 following a game where his rating was below 100. In other words, he has been streaky. He will string over a series of games where his rating is above 100, then also a series where he is below 100.

This game will not be won solely by QB production, but I strongly believe that Eli will need to be real good for the Giants to win. And by no means am I saying that he won’t, but historical performance seems to indicate he might just be good, or maybe even average.

luckyly · Answer

LOOK 4 A RUN/RUN GAME,,RIDIN THE UNDER

alecboyh · Answer

IM GUESSIN YOULL PLAY PATRIOTS ... AND EVEN THOUGH I AM A GIANTS SUPPORTER, IT REALLY CONCERNS ME THAT THE PUBLIC AND EVERY EXPERT AND ANALYST IS ON THE GIANTS ... SAYIN THAT AND READING YOUR ANALYSIS, I THINK NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS MONEYLINE IS THE RIGHT PLAY ... GL SPAZ!!!

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

alecboyh - thanks buddy.  Go with your gut.  It&#x27;s different than if this was a Week 3 game and seeing a bunch of people on one team out of 32.  Only two options in this one.  GL

SettleDownSpaz · Answer

New York / New England OVER 53.5 (waiting)&#xD;&#xA;I&#x27;m still waiting to see where this total goes, but I like the over at 53.5, 54, and to be honest I even like it at 55.  Every team the Giants played this year whose offense likes to roll up points turned into a shootout.  The Packers twice, the Saints, even the Bills in Week 6 who up to that point had an offense that was playing like a well oiled machine.  The only game that went under where their opponent was a "high-octaned" offense was against NE.  The 24-20 final missed the total by a TD, but digging in a bit, some things of note.  Both Nicks and Bradshaw did not play, the teams combined for six turnovers and they were a combined 5-9 inside the red zone.  NE&#x27;s offense has been rolling all season especially over their 10 game winning streak, which coincidentally began after the loss to the Giants.  They have put up the following points since that loss - 37, 34, 38, 31, 34, 41, 27, 49, 45 and 23.  The last leg was their AFC Championship game vs. the Ravens, who was clearly the best defense they had seen in 10 weeks.   Some might highlight that Giants front is equal to, if not, better than the Ravens.  I&#x27;m not convinced of that, but what I do know is that Giants secondary is not only worse than the Ravens, but also worse than just about every team the Pats have played over their last ten games.  The Giants rank 23rd in passing defense, while the Ravens rank 4th.  Of all the teams the Pats played during their ten game winning streak, only one (Miami) had a worse passing defense than the Giants.  I like that the last time these two teams met in the Super Bowl the game went under. I like that their meeting in the regular season went under.  And I like that the public is driving the opening number down.

fsutomahawk · Answer

Good Luck on the Superbowl Spaz. I am heavily leaning to the Pats right now. Might just take them to win straight up. As far as the total I am waiting for it to continue to drop and will be joining you on the over. One thing about the first meeting you forgot to mention that is important, is that all the 44 points scored in that game were in the second half alone. It is hard to believe that these two will have a quarter, let alone a whole half go into the books scoreless again.

Sharukh10 · Answer

Usually agree with ur analysis but not in this case. The Giants personality has been consistent throughout the years ... they play up to competition and down to competition.

This Giants team, especially their defense is the healthiest they have been all year ... their LB core was devastated by injury in the middle of the year and Tuck and Osi weren't healthy all year (even if they played).

I don't agree with the conclusions your stats lead to. Stats can be hand picked and stats themselves can be misleading.

Alex Smith was 12-26 .. highlighting his quarterback rating that is artificially high because of two long tds and a conservative gameplan doesn't mean the giants defense is declining in production. Also Alex smith running for 42 yards isn't something to be concerned about, as two examples.

Something has to be said for matchups ... the Patriots offense has underperformed vs the giants. Is this a result of variance or the fact that the giants are able to get pressure with 4 lineman disrupting their scheme ... i have no idea. Personally i think Belichick is gonna run the ball a lot this game to slow down giants especially early in the game. BOL tho, should be a great game.

FrankT55 · Answer

Spaz the defenses they faced got better, pack was a under valued cause they always had lead, just like pats...sf is the best def in the league.

Super Bowl

Hot Forum Topics