xkcd

by **Garm** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:29 pm UTC

What's there to say that isn't being said elsewhere?

It's not even Tebow that makes me sad, it's that there was just a Poetic Tribute to Tebow on ESPN.

by **Darryl** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:37 am UTC

Garm wrote:What's there to say that isn't being said elsewhere?

It's not even Tebow that makes me sad, it's that there was just a Poetic Tribute to Tebow on ESPN.

Tebow does make Skip Bayless's Twitter hilariously bad.

by **Garm** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:14 am UTC

Darryl wrote:
Garm wrote:What's there to say that isn't being said elsewhere?

It's not even Tebow that makes me sad, it's that there was just a Poetic Tribute to Tebow on ESPN.

Tebow does make Skip Bayless's Twitter hilariously bad.

Tebow has nothing to do with how horrible Skip Bayless is.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Dallas are out. Hooray!

Poor old Detroit, finally get to the playoffs after so many years of futility and get handed a trip to New Orleans.

And Pittsburgh are probbaly going to steamroller Denver.

by **Darryl** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:00 pm UTC

Garm wrote:
Darryl wrote:
Garm wrote:What's there to say that isn't being said elsewhere?

It's not even Tebow that makes me sad, it's that there was just a Poetic Tribute to Tebow on ESPN.

Tebow does make Skip Bayless's Twitter hilariously bad.

Tebow has nothing to do with how horrible Skip Bayless is.

No, but he has everything to do with Skip Bayless going from just horrible to hilariously horrible.

by **rath358** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

All I know is a Green Bay v New Orleans NFC Championship game would be terrific. I think it's between those two anyway to go all the way.

by **Darryl** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

rath358 wrote:Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

Only team I really see standing in their way is San Fran. So if they make it through the NFC Championship, it's all but guaranteed.

by **bentheimmigrant** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 3:13 am UTC

Darryl wrote:
rath358 wrote:Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

Only team I really see standing in their way is San Fran. So if they make it through the NFC Championship, it's all but guaranteed.

Is say that NO and GB have pretty even offences, so it comes down to D, and NO might have the edge there. San Fran set records for field goals, and that's not enough against teams scoring TDs.

by **Adacore** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:39 pm UTC

Maybe I'm overestimating how much it matters, but I have trouble seeing the Saints winning a playoff game in Wisconsin in January - they'll do fine against the Lions in their cosy Louisiana dome, but Green Bay is going to be (almost by definition) a lot colder and windier. I do agree the GB defense is terrible, though. I think they'll struggle in the Superbowl if they do make it that far.

With the way their defenses (and offenses) have played this season, a Packers vs Patriots superbowl could be crazy-high-scoring. Would be fun to watch.

by **Darryl** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:38 am UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Darryl wrote:
rath358 wrote:Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

Only team I really see standing in their way is San Fran. So if they make it through the NFC Championship, it's all but guaranteed.

Is say that NO and GB have pretty even offences, so it comes down to D, and NO might have the edge there. San Fran set records for field goals, and that's not enough against teams scoring TDs.

The fact that GB kinda demolished a health NO team at the start of the season speaks otherwise.

by **Heisenberg** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:San Fran set records for field goals, and that's not enough against teams scoring TDs.

But San Fran's also really good at not allowing touchdowns. Especially against the run. So... that's why they can win games with field goals.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of these Wild Cards make it to the championship games. I think the Bengals have a better team than the Patriots this year, and I doubt they'll have a problem with the QB-less Texans. And if anyone has a chance at beating Green Bay at Lambeau, it might be the Falcons. They have a strong ground game, and a reasonable defense that should at least slow down Captain Neckbeard.

by **Telchar** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:22 pm UTC

Neither of those teams run TD's in though. The problem with San Fran is their offence is so anemic that their defense has to limit the opponent to less than 21 points or there's almost no way SF can win. In order for SF to beat NO/GB, they need a monster outing from The Smiths on the dline.

And, tbh, I kinda like the NYG chance of beating GB more than anyone's. Decent running game, big play passing game, monster front 7. Especially since the Packer's oline is beat-up.

by **Dark567** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:46 am UTC

NYG is also a cold weather team, so they won't have any problem with lambeau. GBs defense isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There in the middle of the league in efficiency last I checked, and that's a more predicative stat then total yards. Also teams know they have put up points against them from the start; teams play riskier aganst them.

by **Adacore** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:02 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:NYG is also a cold weather team, so they won't have any problem with lambeau. GBs defense isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There in the middle of the league in efficiency last I checked, and that's a more predicative stat then total yards. Also teams know they have put up points against them from the start; teams play riskier aganst them.

I guess it's not really so much that the defense is terrible, just that it's so much worse than it was last year. For most of last season, the Packers D was rock solid, probably better than their offense - this year they've been nowhere near that level.

by **Darryl** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:18 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
Dark567 wrote:NYG is also a cold weather team, so they won't have any problem with lambeau. GBs defense isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. There in the middle of the league in efficiency last I checked, and that's a more predicative stat then total yards. Also teams know they have put up points against them from the start; teams play riskier aganst them.

I guess it's not really so much that the defense is terrible, just that it's so much worse than it was last year. For most of last season, the Packers D was rock solid, probably better than their offense - this year they've been nowhere near that level.

Except if you analyze it by quarter, the trend shows why. They're giving up more late game, but it's often at a point where they can play a bit more lax. Possibly to avoid missing half their defense like they were in last year's playoffs.

by **bentheimmigrant** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
Darryl wrote:
rath358 wrote:Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

Only team I really see standing in their way is San Fran. So if they make it through the NFC Championship, it's all but guaranteed.

Is say that NO and GB have pretty even offences, so it comes down to D, and NO might have the edge there. San Fran set records for field goals, and that's not enough against teams scoring TDs.

The fact that GB kinda demolished a health NO team at the start of the season speaks otherwise.

The fact that you're basing this on week 1 takes a lot of weight out of this statement.

by **cpt** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Darryl wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
Darryl wrote:
rath358 wrote:Me thinks that the Pack is gonna win again. Anyone with me?

Only team I really see standing in their way is San Fran. So if they make it through the NFC Championship, it's all but guaranteed.

Is say that NO and GB have pretty even offences, so it comes down to D, and NO might have the edge there. San Fran set records for field goals, and that's not enough against teams scoring TDs.

The fact that GB kinda demolished a health NO team at the start of the season speaks otherwise.

The fact that you're basing this on week 1 takes a lot of weight out of this statement.

I believe that the Packers have a much tougher road than a lot of people seem to think. The Giants scared them once already this season, and with the G-men's pass rush getting healthier, it will be no walk in the park for Rogers. Then they presumably will play the Saints, who played them to within a touchdown+2 to open the season, and appear to have only gotten better since. If they then meet the Pats in the SB, they are playing the other team with an offense that might keep up with them.
I'd only give GB a ( 75% x 67% x 67% = ) roughly 33% chance of winning the SB this year.

by **Dark567** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

cpt wrote:I believe that the Packers have a much tougher road than a lot of people seem to think. The Giants scared them once already this season, and with the G-men's pass rush getting healthier, it will be no walk in the park for Rogers. Then they presumably will play the Saints, who played them to within a touchdown+2 to open the season, and appear to have only gotten better since. If they then meet the Pats in the SB, they are playing the other team with an offense that might keep up with them.
I'd only give GB a ( 75% x 67% x 67% = ) roughly 33% chance of winning the SB this year.

Right. I mean if you are (good)gambling person, you would never bet that any team better then a 33% or 25% chance of winning the SB at the beginning of the playoffs. There are 12 teams and generally there will be a few upsets.

FootballOutsiders list the following odds.

Odds to win Super Bowl XLVI
1 GB 23.6% 5 NO 9.1% 9 NYG 2.0%
2 NE 22.8% 6 PIT 7.7% 10 HOU 1.4%
3 BAL 13.2% 7 ATL 4.0% 11 CIN 1.0%
4 SF 12.7% 8 DET 2.1% 12 DEN 0.5%

And Monte Carlo(home team given a 60% chance of winning, which matches the general trend) and Historical playoff probabilities based on seeding

Seed Prob Actual
1 36% 44%
2 29% 22%
3 11% 11%
4 10% 6%
5 7% 6%
6 6% 11%

by **Telchar** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

NYG are seeing action at 20:1 to win the SB. I'm seriously considering putting some money down on that. Seems way too high.

by **Dark567** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:55 pm UTC

On something I've noticed on SB gambling:

Spoiler:

by **lutzj** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:On something I've noticed on SB gambling:
Spoiler:
So I've noticed different sites have different odds for teams. Like one site has 40:1 for the Lions and another 80:1. Couldn't you arbitrage this by betting on one and betting against the other? How don't these converge to one set of odds? Is there literally just money sitting on the table here?

You could probably make theoretical gains in the area between the two sites' odds, but your gains will probably be eaten up by the house except in extreme cases.

by **Dark567** » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:32 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:You could probably make theoretical gains in the area between the two sites' odds, but your gains will probably be eaten up by the house except in extreme cases.

Right, the house generally takes a 10% cut so you need the gap between the two odds to be bigger. But this was a 100% gap in payouts.... certainly enough to beat the house.

by **Drumheller769** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:48 pm UTC

Steelers.....just ugh. How does anyone mess up a single quarter that bad? Guess they never really did fix their biggest problem all season. Most games that mattered they always seemed to give up the big passes.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:51 pm UTC

Did Denver change quarterbacks after the first quarter without telling anyone?

I'm going to be insane and predict some surprises next weekend - New England, Houston, Green Bay and San Francisco

by **Radical_Initiator** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:Did Denver change quarterbacks after the first quarter without telling anyone?

"We've secretly replaced Denver's quarterback with a cleverly disguised Drew Brees. Let's see what happens!"

On your picks for the next round - SF? I've got to think New Orleans can take care of business there.

by **Adam H** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:25 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Dark567 wrote:On something I've noticed on SB gambling:
Spoiler:
So I've noticed different sites have different odds for teams. Like one site has 40:1 for the Lions and another 80:1. Couldn't you arbitrage this by betting on one and betting against the other? How don't these converge to one set of odds? Is there literally just money sitting on the table here?
You could probably make theoretical gains in the area between the two sites' odds, but your gains will probably be eaten up by the house except in extreme cases.

For this example, you'd lay around $1 at 80:1 for the lions to win the superbowl, and lay around $70 at 40:1 for the lions to not win. If (when) the lions do not win the super bowl, your $70 bet wins you about $1.75 while you lose your $1 bet, for a profit of 75c assuming house takes nothing. So that's an easy 1% profit made, but only if house doesn't take anything. (if lions win, you make ~$9 profit without the house cut).

I'm not sure how the house takes their cut. It would be easy enough for them to make it pointless to ever bet on the 40:1 sure thing (detroit not winning SB), even if you're hedging your bets. But I think the house makes most of their money by people taking the underdog on 40:1 type bets, when the actual odds are more like 80:1, so they might not even care.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:Steelers.....just ugh. How does anyone mess up a single quarter that bad? Guess they never really did fix their biggest problem all season. Most games that mattered they always seemed to give up the big passes.

The Steelers basically had 9 or 10 men assigned to run/ short pass defense every play. They dared Tebow to go for the long ball, because they didn't think he had the arm for it.

by **Drumheller769** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:22 pm UTC

Yea, I would say that was most of the problem, although it didnt help that most of their starting D line was injured so they couldnt put any pressure on Tebow.

by **Heisenberg** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Drumheller769 wrote:Steelers.....just ugh. How does anyone mess up a single quarter that bad? Guess they never really did fix their biggest problem all season. Most games that mattered they always seemed to give up the big passes.
The Steelers basically had 9 or 10 men assigned to run/ short pass defense every play. They dared Tebow to go for the long ball, because they didn't think he had the arm for it.

But... after he showed them he had it the first 9 times, why didn't they change plans? I didn't see the whole game, but the Broncos only completed ten passes and still went over 300 yards. Obviously the Steelers gave up a couple big passing plays in the first 4 quarters, so why didn't they put more than 2 guys on pass defense?

by **Drumheller769** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

The mind, it boggles...that really is why they lost...and they were just like...oblivious to the problem.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:The mind, it boggles...that really is why they lost...and they were just like...oblivious to the problem.

I think Tebow is built to play a defense focused team. He can confuse the defense and put up some points. I have my doubts about him getting into a shootout though. I have to think NO, GB, and NE would just outscore him until he couldn't come back.

by **Drumheller769** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

Good point, if Ben could have moved faster than he was, it probably would have been a different game.

by **Heisenberg** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:He can confuse the defense and put up some points.

I really don't think that Tebow had anything to do with that. The play calling did, in fact, trick the Steelers into defending a run, but unless Tebow was calling the plays from the line, that wasn't on Tebow. The Bronco's powerful running game, along with good play-calling resulted in a failure by the Steelers' D. Neither of those things are related to Tim Tebow, though.

I mean, if the guy really did walk up to the line and tell his team "Okay guys, based on the defense I'm changing the play to a deep pass to Thomas. Set, Hike!" then I apologize and retract my statement. However, I'm pretty sure the dude walked up and said "Dear five pound six ounce baby Jesus, thank you for rainbows and sand castles. Set, Hike!"

by **Dark567** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I really don't think that Tebow had anything to do with that. The play calling did, in fact, trick the Steelers into defending a run, but unless Tebow was calling the plays from the line, that wasn't on Tebow. The Bronco's powerful running game, along with good play-calling resulted in a failure by the Steelers' D. Neither of those things are related to Tim Tebow, though.

I mean, if the guy really did walk up to the line and tell his team "Okay guys, based on the defense I'm changing the play to a deep pass to Thomas. Set, Hike!" then I apologize and retract my statement. However, I'm pretty sure the dude walked up and said "Dear five pound six ounce baby Jesus, thank you for rainbows and sand castles. Set, Hike!"

Sure, I don't think he did that. But I think the coach told them to go out into a run formation to trick the defense, and then go for the deep ball. Teams try to use this type of misdirection all the time, not just with audibles.

by **bentheimmigrant** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I really don't think that Tebow had anything to do with that. The play calling did, in fact, trick the Steelers into defending a run, but unless Tebow was calling the plays from the line, that wasn't on Tebow. The Bronco's powerful running game, along with good play-calling resulted in a failure by the Steelers' D. Neither of those things are related to Tim Tebow, though.

It's clearly Tebow's unique skill set that had the defence overplaying him. They mostly shut down the running backs, it was Tebow that they were scared of. So yeah. It had everything to do with Tebow. Did you miss his touchdown run? Or the throws? I'm pretty sure that wasn't McGahee that the D was worrying about.

by **Telchar** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:02 pm UTC

Tebow is like a really poor-man's Mike Vick. Terrible short-medium accuracy, can throw a pretty deep ball, and can run. The problem that Philly is finding out is that if you live and die on the deep ball it's a risky business, especially against teams with good safeties. I also think Tebow's elongated delivery is getting his receivers killed on the short crossing routes. Eric Decker is secretly agreeing with me.

by **charliepanayi** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
charliepanayi wrote:Did Denver change quarterbacks after the first quarter without telling anyone?

"We've secretly replaced Denver's quarterback with a cleverly disguised Drew Brees. Let's see what happens!"

On your picks for the next round - SF? I've got to think New Orleans can take care of business there.

I'm sticking my neck out somewhat on that one, New Orleans have been on fire for much of the season. But they've never won a playoff game on the road and I have this odd feeling SF wil benefit from going unnoticed for much of the season.

by **Dark567** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:24 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I'm sticking my neck out somewhat on that one, New Orleans have been on fire for much of the season. But they've never won a playoff game on the road and I have this odd feeling SF wil benefit from going unnoticed for much of the season.

Being a Packer fan, I can only hope SF takes care of NO for us. Although, I suspect Brees would have some problem in the snow/cold anyway.

by **Darryl** » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:43 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:
Radical_Initiator wrote:
charliepanayi wrote:Did Denver change quarterbacks after the first quarter without telling anyone?

"We've secretly replaced Denver's quarterback with a cleverly disguised Drew Brees. Let's see what happens!"

On your picks for the next round - SF? I've got to think New Orleans can take care of business there.

I'm sticking my neck out somewhat on that one, New Orleans have been on fire for much of the season. But they've never won a playoff game on the road and I have this odd feeling SF wil benefit from going unnoticed for much of the season.

Not to mention that Candlestick has a really good home-field advantage. And not just the random power outages.

Who is online