FWIW - Wilheim bets the Super Bowl.......

[Fishhead]

ice said the stat was for yds per attempt, not the yrs total's....btw fish, fvk gb!!!...lol...jk...it it wasn't for the turnover's, there may have been a diff sb champ instead of the chump's that won...lol...:toast:

BETTER teams force turnovers & BETTER teams don't committ them...............using "turnovers" as an excuse for not winning, as quite a Pitt fans and/or Pitt bettors have, is absurd, as much as it is ignorant.

As Wilheim stated with such class after the game, the better team won the game.....plain and simple.

.........and much of the reason GB won, was RODGERS effectiveness against what was not an overly good defense against the pass, a good pass defense mind you, but not overly good.........without a few less wide open drops by recievers, Rodgers could have been looking right in the eye of a 400+ yd passing game, as is, he finished with 300+, 3 TD's, O INT's.

 

[quantumleap]

Mendenhall only got 14 carries because of the Steelers always playig catchup. Nothing you can do about that.


The best team won, congrats to all Packer backers, you guys deserved to win...


Best, wil..

Sorry to jinx your bet Willis.

 

[X-Files]

The right side lost. Can't win em all, but 50% of the time you will win this type
at a very nice + 130, more or less. They play this 10 times and the turnovers
are likely almost dead even.

 

[Fishhead]

The right side lost. Can't win em all, but 50% of the time you will win this type
at a very nice + 130, more or less. They play this 10 times and the turnovers
are likely almost dead even.

........and they play 100 times and Woodson leaves the game with an injury, what, only 4 or 5 times(not to mention Donald Driver)??

Pitt was NOT the right side in this game..........again, with CW playing, Pitt had scored a mere 3 points through almost an entire half of football.


Again, better teams, WHEN MATCHED UP, create more turnovers than their opposition and committ fewer.

 

[betedgeonly]

BETTER teams force turnovers & BETTER teams don't committ them...............using "turnovers" as an excuse for not winning, as quite a Pitt fans and/or Pitt bettors have, is absurd, as much as it is ignorant.

As Wilheim stated with such class after the game, the better team won the game.....plain and simple.

.........and much of the reason GB won, was RODGERS effectiveness against what was not an overly good defense against the pass, a good pass defense mind you, but not overly good.........without a few less wide open drops by recievers, Rodgers could have been looking right in the eye of a 400+ yd passing game, as is, he finished with 300+, 3 TD's, O INT's.

i am not trying to take anything away from gb, they deserved to win the gm, period. but, turnover's are the biggest diff maker in ANY NFL gm. in the history of the nfl, the team that has had a plus 2 margin won and covered the gm 84% of the time. in the super bowl era, out of 45 gms, the team that had at least a plus 1 or better margin, is 33-3 , the other 9 sb gms were a tie in this stat. it is a HUGE diff maker and gb did their job, plain and simple. lol, doesn't mean i still have like this socialist ran team from one of our biggest liberal state's, fvk em all.....lol...but i still like you fish, your a quality poster and a sharp gambler w ALOT of knowledge in this industry that i can and do respect, my friend....:toast:imp::howdy:

 

[Fishhead]

i am not trying to take anything away from gb, they deserved to win the gm, period. but, turnover's are the biggest diff maker in ANY NFL gm. in the history of the nfl, the team that has had a plus 2 margin won and covered the gm 84% of the time. in the super bowl era, out of 45 gms, the team that had at least a plus 1 or better margin, is 33-3 , the other 9 sb gms were a tie in this stat. it is a HUGE diff maker and gb did their job, plain and simple. lol, doesn't mean i still have like this socialist ran team from one of our biggest liberal state's, fvk em all.....lol...but i still like you fish, your a quality poster and a sharp gambler w ALOT of knowledge in this industry that i can and do respect, my friend....:toast:imp::howdy:

Thanks EDGE, looking forward to seeing you soon, been a long time my friend............get your ass to Vegas and hook up with Ice and me.

On the turnover issue, the point is the BETTER teams in a particular matchup will consistantly force more turnover and committ fewer..............if they played 100 times in the same scenario as the Superbowl, GB would accomplish this(winning the turnover battle) many more times than not, thus, the better team........and keep in mind, GB played more than half the game without one of the greatest turnover creaters the game as ever seen, Charles Woodson(the great MICHIGAN product).

 

[X-Files]

........and keep in mind, GB played more than half the game without one of the greatest turnover creaters the game as ever seen, Charles Woodson(the great MICHIGAN product).

Yeah, but he's so old, that's why...part of the game, & the roll of the dice, sir,
just like turnovers. Congrats on your good fortune this time, not LY on Indy
@ -200 ML ; Better team? My ass.

 

[sean1]

Fish - if the game was played again, you really think it would be +142? Hell it was +115 at one point at Pinny late in the game with Pitt down.

I think at best it would be +110 if played again.

 

[Fishhead]

Fish - if the game was played again, you really think it would be +142? Hell it was +115 at one point at Pinny late in the game with Pitt down.

I think at best it would be +110 if played again.

Yes, if Woodson and Driver started the game healthy and Pouncey were still unavailable, the line would close higher then it did this past Sunday.......absolutely!!

Pitt +110 at best??????...........negative.

 

[X-Files]

it was +115 at one point at Pinny late in the game with Pitt down.

Really, Steelers +115? Right after it became 28-25? I'd say that would be
very good value on GB.

 

[sean1]

When Pitt had the ball down one score at around the GB 40, Pinny had Pitt +115 and Cinci -105. (I might be off by a point. It might have been +113, -105 or so).

I thought about hedging but didn't - oh well

 

[X-Files]

When Pitt had the ball down one score at around the GB 40, Pinny had Pitt +115 and Cinci -105. (I might be off by a point. It might have been +113, -105 or so).

I thought about hedging but didn't - oh well

It seems they got to their own 33, with only one time out left, perhaps, and the clock becoming a huge factor. With 2:07 to go Pittsburg recieved the ball down 31-25. Then:

1st and 10 at PIT 13(Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass short middle to H.Miller to PIT 28 for 15 yards (J.Bush).

1st and 10 at PIT 28(No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass to H.Ward to PIT 33 for 5 yards (C.Peprah).

2nd and 5 at PIT 33(No Huddle, Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete deep right.
3rd and 5 at PIT 33(Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete deep left to M.Wallace. 4th and 5 at PIT 33(Shotgun) B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short left to M.Wallace.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=310206009&period=4

With the Steelers around +115, i'd assume Pinnacle would have GB at least -125
in live betting. GB {not Cinci} -105 at that point would have either been a bad
line or begging for money on the Packers. Even -125 ML then would seem to be
praying for the same, &/or a result of misguided enthusiasm for the losing side
and/or Packer backers hedging/chickening out. I'd have been all over GB and made
then maybe -300 when it was 1st down on the 33.

 

[Fishhead]

Pitt was +115 at one time in the game facing a defense with no WOODSON and no SHIELDS(at the time)........plus no DRIVER.



This has no bearing on what the line would be if the teams played next weekend and Woodson, Shields, and Driver were all listed having no injuries and would definetly start..................PITT would be at LEAST a +120 underdog at many shops in this scenario and the closing number at Matchbook would close at LEAST +126 or higher..............and I'm being extremely generous here to those that think differently.

To believe Pitt would be only +110(at Matchbook marketprice) is ridiculous.