1911 Beta

by **bonerhaus** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:30 pm

toxinatoR wrote:

wow lol.

by **toxinatoR** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:53 pm

by **scorch-** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:24 pm

showtime wrote:
Reh wrote:
On The Herd they said that if the game was replayed that Vegas odds makers would still favor the Pats but by 2.5 points this time. Doesn't make any sense.....
From my understanding, the lines are set to induce the most betting. So, they basically created formulas to figure out how they'll make the most money---it's not about who wins or loses.

Then again, I'd take the Patriots in a bet if they played the Giants again tommorow. One of the things I've always disliked about sports is the "we won. You lost. We're the best, and you suck". The Patriots very well could be the better team , but just lost the first time due to variance.
The lines aren't to induce the most betting but to ensure (as much as possible) that half of all bets fall on either side of the line. This way the sports book minimizes their losses and makes money on the vig. Why it doesn't make sense to me is this: In a rematch the Giants would still be the hotter team, have less personnel question marks, and had already beaten the Pats twice.

I don't see why you think that game wasn't a 2.5 game in either direction. The difference between those 2 teams was less than a field goal and the Pats had the better of it until 57 seconds remained.

by **showtime** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:09 am

Reh wrote:
On The Herd they said that if the game was replayed that Vegas odds makers would still favor the Pats but by 2.5 points this time. Doesn't make any sense.....
From my understanding, the lines are set to induce the most betting. So, they basically created formulas to figure out how they'll make the most money---it's not about who wins or loses.

Then again, I'd take the Patriots in a bet if they played the Giants again tommorow. One of the things I've always disliked about sports is the "we won. You lost. We're the best, and you suck". The Patriots very well could be the better team , but just lost the first time due to variance.

The lines aren't to induce the most betting but to ensure (as much as possible) that half of all bets fall on either side of the line. This way the sports book minimizes their losses and makes money on the vig. Why it doesn't make sense to me is this: In a rematch the Giants would still be the hotter team, have less personnel question marks, and had already beaten the Pats twice.

by **taylor** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:02 am

Boston residents still mourning Wes Welker's crucial drop in Super Bowl XLVI were delivered 8,000 buttefingers Tuesday, care of Pawngo.com.

by **bonerhaus** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:57 am

wasn't a fun game to watch at all... the commercials were subpar

by **scorch-** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:38 am

That variance being the guy that carried them this season being injured and his replacement dropping an easy catch with the game on the line?

by **ThatsRight** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:17 pm

On The Herd they said that if the game was replayed that Vegas odds makers would still favor the Pats but by 2.5 points this time. Doesn't make any sense.....

From my understanding, the lines are set to induce the most betting. So, they basically created formulas to figure out how they'll make the most money---it's not about who wins or loses.

Then again, I'd take the Patriots in a bet if they played the Giants again tommorow. One of the things I've always disliked about sports is the "we won. You lost. We're the best, and you suck". The Patriots very well could be the better team , but just lost the first time due to variance.

by **joeledmunds** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:12 pm

Sears wrote:
mogers wrote:Fucking cal-o ogl-ladder son.
Fixed.

The OGL ladder was a respectful station for all the top teams.

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:22 pm

mogers wrote:Fucking cal-o ogl-ladder son.

Fixed.

by **mogers** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:32 pm

As soon as the Giants got that first down in the red zone, I immediately thought let them score.. but New England took a time out, then let them score.. wtf Bill. Fucking cal-o son. Could have had another 10 seconds, and an extra time out.

by **james-** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:47 pm

I think it's clear from watching the play that Bradshaw didn't know when he got the ball that they intended to let him score. It looks to me that when he figured it out that he tried to stop, but couldn't (who could at that speed with that little time?).

You're trying to tell me that he was the only person in that stadium that didn't know the patriots were going to let them score? Every coach and (almost) every player knew what the strategy was going to be.

He gets the ball in his hands, sees a HUGE hole up the middle, linebackers are practically walking out of his way, and he speeds up...

Before he even made it to the 5, he saw a giant clear path in front of him. With his momentum, he could have simply fallen forward and the ball would have landed in an ideal spot, ending the game right then and there.

I couldn't care less about this mistake, I'm a pats fan and I was hoping brady could have another one of those amazing passing drives. I just can't comprehend how he didn't know what was going to happen when every coach and player must have been telling him "they're gonna try and let you score"

by **Rambizzle** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:16 pm

Sears wrote:Thanks Ricky, that's exactly how I felt when I wrote that.

np bro, pound it.

by **RoNiX** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:37 pm

i am just waiting for a baby ruth to be added to that weird chick that was behind the patriots coach all game. i swear that was vigo from ghostbusters 2. if i had any skill at photoshop left, i would love to do a side by side.

by **CharlieGiteau** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:31 pm

I saw an interview with Bradshaw and him saying that as he was getting the ball from Eli, Eli was yelling at him to just go down and not score. Eli was definitely aware, but Bradshaw was not aware at all.

by **Rob** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:00 pm

scottglass wrote:
I should have watched Drive instead...

Yes, you should have. Awesome movie.

by **showtime** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:55 am

On The Herd they said that if the game was replayed that Vegas odds makers would still favor the Pats but by 2.5 points this time. Doesn't make any sense.....

by **taylor** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:44 am

cant believe the giants won

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:40 am

shhhhhh

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:19 am

Thanks Ricky, that's exactly how I felt when I wrote that.

by **Swiss** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:13 am

scottglass wrote:Most boring superbowl I've ever seen. Bad commercials, bad half time show, bad game.

I should have watched Drive instead...

Really? I thought it was a great game, Brady's drive before the half, then giants drive at the very end. Both quarter backs were playing lights out pretty much the whole game.

And I completely agree with Eric. It was very clear that Bradshaw didn't know they'd let him score so he was running at top speed. In 10 yards it's pretty hard to stop on a dime with no contact, even if you drop down on two knees. Did look hilarious though

by **scottglass** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:47 am

Most boring superbowl I've ever seen. Bad commercials, bad half time show, bad game.

I should have watched Drive instead...

by **Rambizzle** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:24 am

Sears wrote:You must have a lot of experience as an NFL running back that I'm not aware of.

I'm not saying it didn't look funny, and that it wasn't clear to spectators what was going on. But the player's perspective is totally different.

I think it's clear from watching the play that Bradshaw didn't know when he got the ball that they intended to let him score. It looks to me that when he figured it out that he tried to stop, but couldn't (who could at that speed with that little time?).

In retrospect it really was the right call by New England, they had 50 seconds and a couple of shots at the end zone that they would never have had if NY kicks a game winning field goal with 3 seconds left.

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:15 am

You must have a lot of experience as an NFL running back that I'm not aware of.

I'm not saying it didn't look funny, and that it wasn't clear to spectators what was going on. But the player's perspective is totally different.

I think it's clear from watching the play that Bradshaw didn't know when he got the ball that they intended to let him score. It looks to me that when he figured it out that he tried to stop, but couldn't (who could at that speed with that little time?).

In retrospect it really was the right call by New England, they had 50 seconds and a couple of shots at the end zone that they would never have had if NY kicks a game winning field goal with 3 seconds left.

by **james-** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:50 am

I find it hard to believe that anyone on the giants was unaware that the pats would let them score so they could get the ball back with as much time as possible.

When the hole opened up, and the line backers stepped aside, he should have just fallen down forward and let the clock keep going. He had to have known, that if they were to run it up the middle they would let him in. Pats defenders were even running to push him in once he was trying to stop.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. It just gave brady an extra 50~ seconds to throw a bunch of passes that no one caught.

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:27 am

james- wrote:I know what they were trying to do. But he failed hard if he was actually trying to stop at the goal line. I know he had a lot of momentum going into it, but if he hadn't of turned, he could have simply dropped to his knees.

It wasn't a "epic fail" in the slightest. He wasn't "trying" to stop at the goal line at all, he was just reacting when he realized that new england was trying to let him score. But, stopping your momentum is easier said than done, especially as a running back who is totally programmed to be going at full rpm's by the time he's got the ball in his hands. I actually thought it was pretty impressive how quickly he realized what was happening and how he reacted to it, however unable he was of stopping him momentum at full speed.

by **james-** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:17 am

I know what they were trying to do. But he failed hard if he was actually trying to stop at the goal line. I know he had a lot of momentum going into it, but if he hadn't of turned, he could have simply dropped to his knees.

On another note... Discuss...

[youtube]lhfmczHvoo0[/youtube]

De_stroyed

by **Sears** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:02 am

by **james-** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:56 am

lol, at least it was a semi-entertaining game.

I lololol'd so hard watching that guy try to take a knee on the goal line, I'm still not sure if he was really trying to, or if he wanted to score a superbowl TD that badly.

Pats failed hard on that last drive, i had confidence they would at least give us a good 50+ yard drive.

by **Rambizzle** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:23 am

and when dude sat down for the TD, I was like

by **Rambizzle** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:04 am

son...

1911 Beta

no superbowl thread?!

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

Re: no superbowl thread?!

no superbowl thread?!