But that's not the way I'm playing it. Of course I'm 0-3 on my last three posted NFL plays, so this may be good fade material. I don't believe in jinxes, and therefore, posted or not, this is just my $$$ on the line and the why.
For ratings purposes, yes, the NFL would rather have Brady and Rodgers in the SB. But I've seen too many unattractive teams make it to the Super Bowl, or win playoff games, that I think it is way too simplistic to think that the TV ratings determine who wins and loses games like this. If it was that easy, we bettors would be cleaning up betting on the Brady, Rodgers-type teams all along. The Pats and Packers win because they are very good teams, led by great QBs. Think back to all the compelling teams and players who never did squat in the post-season. If you believe in a "fix", please post on that other thread that is specifically related to that. Please.
Atlanta 1H -3
Atlanta -4.5 I have more riding on the 1st half bet than the game bet only because Rodgers has a propensity for driving his team down the field in desperate situations and could get a back door cover. If the Cowgirls had run the ball early and often, and gotten the lead, that +5 could have come into play in the 4th quarter and that could happen here. Rodgers is the better QB here only because of his mobility, but the Falcons have the better offense, and they are at home. The Falcons are in the 99th percentile for points scored for all NFL teams since the merger of the NFL and AFL. The 12th best offense since 1970. They have played 7 games against top 10 defenses and still managed to score 30+ points per game. They score on 52.4% of their drives compared to the league average of 35.6%. They also don't turn the ball over much. I just can't see this GB defense having much luck stopping the Falcons O.
After Seattle's 7-0 lead to start last week's game, the Falcons were impressive both defensively and offensively- outscoring Seattle 36-6 until the Seahawks scored a late TD in the last 3 minutes. And though many of us haven't seen the Falcons play all that much, they are NOT the team we thought they were. The defense statistically is below average, but part of that is because Atlanta is so prolific in scoring that their opponents have to also open up their offenses to keep up. Then there's the many times that they lead a game in the 2nd half, and their opponents are passing often to catch up. Neither Green Bay or Atlanta has a stellar defense, but the Falcons play with intensity and have the talent(though not the experience) to feed off the home crowd here, like the Seattle game, and keep the Packer's O limited. The Giants and Cowboys each had a half where they kept Rodgers pressured, and it made him less effective, and I have to believe DC Richard Smith will at least keep Rodgers under some kind of containment/ pressure that includes 5 rushers as the norm. I know, easier said than done.
I'm also playing this a little contrarian here. As in the general thought of "You'd be crazy to give Rodgers and the Packers 4-5 points after last week." So why are the books giving it? I think they also know how good this Falcons team is, and that the Packers are so much Rodgers and average otherwise, that they are worried that the whales will hit Atlanta big at 3.5 or lower. I think they want GB money. The Packers could be the hot team, as is the case in some past seasons that the hotter, not best team goes all the way, so that's a risk.
For ratings purposes, yes, the NFL would rather have Brady and Rodgers in the SB. But I've seen too many unattractive teams make it to the Super Bowl, or win playoff games, that I think it is way too simplistic to think that the TV ratings determine who wins and loses games like this. If it was that easy, we bettors would be cleaning up betting on the Brady, Rodgers-type teams all along. The Pats and Packers win because they are very good teams, led by great QBs. Think back to all the compelling teams and players who never did squat in the post-season. If you believe in a "fix", please post on that other thread that is specifically related to that. Please.
Atlanta 1H -3
Atlanta -4.5 I have more riding on the 1st half bet than the game bet only because Rodgers has a propensity for driving his team down the field in desperate situations and could get a back door cover. If the Cowgirls had run the ball early and often, and gotten the lead, that +5 could have come into play in the 4th quarter and that could happen here. Rodgers is the better QB here only because of his mobility, but the Falcons have the better offense, and they are at home. The Falcons are in the 99th percentile for points scored for all NFL teams since the merger of the NFL and AFL. The 12th best offense since 1970. They have played 7 games against top 10 defenses and still managed to score 30+ points per game. They score on 52.4% of their drives compared to the league average of 35.6%. They also don't turn the ball over much. I just can't see this GB defense having much luck stopping the Falcons O.
After Seattle's 7-0 lead to start last week's game, the Falcons were impressive both defensively and offensively- outscoring Seattle 36-6 until the Seahawks scored a late TD in the last 3 minutes. And though many of us haven't seen the Falcons play all that much, they are NOT the team we thought they were. The defense statistically is below average, but part of that is because Atlanta is so prolific in scoring that their opponents have to also open up their offenses to keep up. Then there's the many times that they lead a game in the 2nd half, and their opponents are passing often to catch up. Neither Green Bay or Atlanta has a stellar defense, but the Falcons play with intensity and have the talent(though not the experience) to feed off the home crowd here, like the Seattle game, and keep the Packer's O limited. The Giants and Cowboys each had a half where they kept Rodgers pressured, and it made him less effective, and I have to believe DC Richard Smith will at least keep Rodgers under some kind of containment/ pressure that includes 5 rushers as the norm. I know, easier said than done.
I'm also playing this a little contrarian here. As in the general thought of "You'd be crazy to give Rodgers and the Packers 4-5 points after last week." So why are the books giving it? I think they also know how good this Falcons team is, and that the Packers are so much Rodgers and average otherwise, that they are worried that the whales will hit Atlanta big at 3.5 or lower. I think they want GB money. The Packers could be the hot team, as is the case in some past seasons that the hotter, not best team goes all the way, so that's a risk.
