Super Bowl XLIX: Seattle Seahawks vs. New England Patriots

If cheating didn't work . .. . . no one would do it

Rocket River

 

Lol, calm down with the hyperbole. Seattle never opened at -3 anywhere in Vegas. The most was -2 and maybe -2.5 briefly at some places. Either way the line wasn't "off" and the current line isn't "off" either.

Sea -1 or pick 'em or NE -1, which is what it is now in Vegas, is exactly where it should be taking into account public perception based on the most recent results for both teams. I think it'll be a close game, but some influential Vegas power rankings (such as the one used by the Wynn) have Seattle as 4 pts better than the Pats on a neutral field.

Practically the same thing happened last year. Seattle opened as the favorite and the general public began pouring in money on Denver until it it went to Seahawks +3 by kickoff. We all know what happened then.

See above... people said the same thing last year.

The question you have to ask yourself is why would oddsmakers open with Seattle as the favorite if the Pats are going to win convincingly? Are they that incompetent or "crazy" that they are just giving away free money on the biggest sporting event in terms of betting?

 

Exactly how I feel. Vegas doesn't hand out free money (not to mention they probably got killed on that sucker tease Pats/Seahawks last week). The public loves the Pats in Super Bowls. There's also many people who believe Russ (and the Seahawks) can't beat Manning and Brady in B2B bowls. The best thing to happen for Seattle backers was the Pats dismantling the Colts.

 

I sure did watch that game on Sunday... And Rodgers chumped up again. Dude can't make it to the super bowl without a top notch dominant defense and 4-5 great receiving options.
#regular*season*fantasy*quarterback
#playoffchokeartist

 

I don't have a link handy, but it was the "professional" bettors that jumped on NE early on at an 80/20 ratio, not the public. Now that the line has been adjusted, oddsmakers still stand to lose a lot if NE wins because of the early "professional" money that was put on NE.

So, yes, this is one time Vegas may have blown it. We will see.

 

Idk what do you guys think, if Brady and Belichik lose another Super Bowl will we still look at them as the same team that won those 3 super bowls in the early 2000's? I mean it's been 10 years.....sure you have 2007 and 2011 but the Giants had their number in both.

 

I would love for BB to coach the Colts, it would surely bring many super bowl wins with Luck, too bad it is not going to happen.

 

Where does this idea that NE is invincible come from? Before the Indy game - a team they've beaten convincingly many times now - they really struggled at home to beat a good-but-not-great Baltimore team. Ignoring Week 17 when they didn't play their starters (and lost), they also struggled in their previous game (Week 16) against a 3 win Jets team.

Seattle has been the better team the last two months, and Carroll has proven to be just as good a playoff coach as Belichick. Seattle just played about the worst possible offensive game you could imagine and still won. Unless Thomas/Sherman are injured, I don't see what makes the Patriots a big favorite. This seems like two pretty well matched teams. Coaching is even; Pats have a better passing game; Seahawks have a better defense and running game.

 

Who said NE was invincible? Forget the last 2 months of the season. Seattle didn't look very good in either playoff win IMO. At home, they only led 7-win Carolina team by 4 points going into the 4th quarter. For the game, Carolina actually outgained them.

I don't think anyone believes NE is invincible. It's all about Seattle not being all that in playoffs. Couldn't care less how they were in the regular season.

 

You say forget the regular season but bring up Carolina's regular season record forgetting the fact that Carolina's defense and Cam got better by the end of the season and Green Bay was considered an elite team.

New England didn't look all that great against Baltimore (who has no secondary)... You're taking one game against the Colts and running with it.

 

The Colts were only 4-5 against winning teams this year, and 2 of those wins were against the Texans whom they own. They beat Cinci in the playoffs (which everyone does...) and then benefited from Peyton being hurt to beat the Broncos. That's why the Pats lopsided win last week doesn't really impress me.

I think Seattle ROLLS, much like they did against the Broncos last year.

 

BB>> Fox, so Seattle will not steam roll NE, he will come up some good game plans. Seattle could win, but it will not be a blow out.

 

I said forget the regular season because he was using that as an argument for Seattle despite their more recent playoff performances. Carolina in the playoffs matched right up with the regular season.

The Pats offense looked great in both playoff games and will likely continue that. Same for Seattle's offense in the negative. Seattle's D is better than the Pats but not enough to overcome the vast gap in offenses.

I would much prefer Seattle to win but it doesn't look good for them IMO. If the Packers didn't go conservative in the 4th quarter or blow the offsides kick or didn't fall for a fake FG, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

My line of thinking is I'm not sure New England's defense can handle Lynch and the zone read with Russell... Which Seattle didn't commit to in the 1st half against Green Bay.

New England's offense is predicted on working inside the numbers and they don't have a WR that requires a double team outside the numbers... Seattle has Cam, Earl, and Wagner that patrols inside the numbers and those guys are 'kinda' good. Plus they will be playing on a fast track in Arizona which should benefit Seattle on both sides of the ball.

Check out the other games Carolina and Seattle have played against each other... So that's nothing new.

And the most simplistic argument is that Green Bay beat New England and Seattle beat Green Bay twice... And Green Bay has more offensive weapons than New England. Also, the AFC is soft compared to the NFC. So comparing AFC teams playing against each other to NFC teams playing against each other may not be an accurate assessment... Just like last year when Denver got ramrodded by Seattle.

You may be right though... That's the good thing about sports. Everything is settled on the field.

 

I'd like to see him Coach Fitzpatrick

Rocket River

 

New England struggled more with Baltimore than Seattle did with Carolina. Baltimore outgained New England in that game too. And while Carolina was on a 5-game win streak, Baltimore had just gotten destroyed by Houston and struggled to beat a Cleveland team that was playing a rookie 3rd string QB before beating a Pittsburgh team missing its best player.

Besides, Seattle doesn't generally dominate people - they just do what's necessary to win. For comparison, last year, Seattle struggled against San Fran in the NFC Title game while Denver was dominating New England in the AFC Title game.

Trying to take too much out of one game doesn't really work - football games don't translate that way. Even within football games, you can't look at domination - that's what got people to say early on that there was no way Green Bay was losing last week or that Baltimore was going to beat NE when they were up 14. People have a tendency to take small samples and extrapolate way too much.

Random stat: Seattle has lost 13 games in Wilson's career. Only 1 was by more than 7 points, and they've never lost by double digits. Even when they lose, they keep it competitive.

 

It's more about matchups than who beat who when. I think the way to beat the Seahawks defense is a power running game and tight end pass catching. Seattle loves to just rush the passer and ignore the run. The way to beat the Seattle offense is doing what GB did, load up on the run and spy Wilson and make him beat one on one coverage. I haven't watched enough New England to know if they can do those things. I'm sure Belicheat will be ready though.

 

Pats D is going to focus on loading up against Marshawn Lynch and containing Russell Wilson's scrambling. They will force the action to Wilson's arm and Seattle's mediocre receivers.

NE's offense will score on Seattle. Plenty. Just my opinion and most will disagree. I doubt very much Seattle's O can keep up with them. NE's offense will score TDs in the red zone. If Seattle falls behind, could get ugly because NE won't go conservative (like GB) and Seattle's O will become predictable.