I don't think there was much question he was going to play, outside of Elway's misdirection, more a question how much and how effective.
Brady/Manning XVII
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
So if "questionable" means 50/50 to play, we should expect 8 of those 16 guys to be inactive, right? 
The Providence, RI to Centennial, CO flight has landed.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/dl8872/#89c2e32
The Patriots have shown up and will take the field against the Broncos...
Touchdown, touchdown, touchdown Troy Brown!
And the kick is blocked! It's picked up! Troy Brown! Lateral to... Antawn Harris! He's gonna go all the way!
What are people thinking, score-wise? I'm interested in seeing how SoSH views this matchup.
I'm thinking 27-16, Pats. Manning/Brock leads a TD drive at some point, and get just enough good field position for a few FGs, but Pats play a clean game and put up 27.
I'll guess Manning gets pulled at the end of the 3rd quarter when the Pats take a 24-13 lead.
I'm thinking 27-16, Pats. Manning/Brock leads a TD drive at some point, and get just enough good field position for a few FGs, but Pats play a clean game and put up 27.
I'll guess Manning gets pulled at the end of the 3rd quarter when the Pats take a 24-13 lead.
I don't think it's that BO is in the doghouse, I think it's more that Kubiak was given a directive to play Manning if he had any opportunity whatsoever, which apparently was against SD (although, that was total bullshit to bench BO in that game after the fumble). Anyway, my guess is Kubiak's taken it on, in a bit of defiance, and is using it as his sword to fall on vs Elway (whether it costs them the opportunity to get blown out in the Super Bowl or not).
Wow, a game-time decision one day to probable the next. Is Mrs. Chris Harris Jr. a Friend of Ashleigh?
While I am sure there will be nothing but crickets to this story, but I can imagine the outcry if Danny Kanell called for the Patriots to hit Manning late a few times early in the game.
"Kanell said on his radio show that he thinks the Broncos should set the tone for the game by hitting Brady late a couple of times, and that it would be worth losing 15 yards to get a couple of extra shots at the other team’s star quarterback."
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/23/danny-kanell-broncos-should-hit-tom-brady-after-the-whistle/
edit: to add the link to the video posted on Deadspin... just wow!
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/espn-dumbass-danny-kanell-calls-for-broncos-to-commit-l-1754655263
"Kanell said on his radio show that he thinks the Broncos should set the tone for the game by hitting Brady late a couple of times, and that it would be worth losing 15 yards to get a couple of extra shots at the other team’s star quarterback."
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/01/23/danny-kanell-broncos-should-hit-tom-brady-after-the-whistle/
edit: to add the link to the video posted on Deadspin... just wow!
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/espn-dumbass-danny-kanell-calls-for-broncos-to-commit-l-1754655263
Last edited:
Bedard in SI points out the Broncos' against PITT's 3 WR sets used a dime package consisting of TJ Ward at LB and Josh Bush(Josh!) as the second deep safety. He suggests they put Von Miller on James White, rush only three, use Talib on Gronk, and Ward on Edelman--interesting scheme. Is Miller quick enough? I like the idea of no pass rush.
I love that people consistently assume Talib can stick on Gronk. Gronk is a fucking monster. Doubling him is, generally, the only way you're taking him away. Just because Talib is big for a corner, 6'1 is a shrimp to Gronk. He might get some OPI, but it'll be worth it to bully their beast/healthiest corner all game.
No, it's "Pummel the Pretty Boy". Big difference. I too love the attention the Pats are getting in NY.
It makes me feel better in the sense that you only start suggesting stuff like that when you can't think of any better strategy
If the Broncos win I will not be pleased. Just throwing that out there.
Maybe they can find a way to acquire Welker for the game to "help" with Talib. Tit for tat and all that.
Wikipedia editing happened quick as noted in the comments section, too
.
If its the same article discussed earlier the author wants to use Talib and a safety over the top. Which then just leaves the slight problem of Brady facing a Von Miller less three man rush while Ward and some scrub try to cover Edelman and Amendola
The Jets were somewhat effective with some three man rush looks in that 2010 playoff loss, but not getting a pass rush on Brady hasn't worked very often.
The "formula" is pretty simple. Either get pressure with four, which gives every QB trouble but the drop off for Brady has been steeper since he's so good normally, or throw a ton of looks at him and hope for the best.
Was this whole "put Talib on Gronk" idea born out of his performance against notoriously contact adverse Jimmy Graham? Because they couldn't be more different as players regarding their physicality. Gronk would destroy Talib.
Kanell did get killed earlier in the week when he said that he hoped the Patriots won because he just wanted to see a compelling Super Bowl.
He basically spent all week saying Manning sucks.
To be fair he did also say that he wouldn't advocate any egregious hits against Brady, but to toe-the-line (of such a thing is possible)
I'm sure people not caring much about such a statement has to do with most of America hating the Patriots, but I also think part of it may be that it does make sense...the only time teams seem to beat the Patriots is when they can get to, hit Brady and make him uncomfortable.
Vegas consensus in line with SoSH:
Should help end the cannard that Vegas just tries to balance money. Wonder what it would have had to move the line to?
When the whistle blows, players let up their guard. Advocating a late hit "just after the whistle" is BS period. Just because he was trashing Manning all week doesn't give him the ability to suggest some thuggery as a way to win. The fact that he posted a vine of his young daughters justifying his inane shit is embarrassing. He doesn't matter in the scope of things, but what scares me is he said out loud what many fans/players think.. Ding Brady, the Patriots are done... no matter how.
Real question: I've heard the old canard, and from a risk management perspective it makes sense to roughly balance the positions.. Unless the outcome is known, why take the risk of a losing a heavy position, and why not just take the risk-free return? If the betting public is so pro Pats, why not adjust the line, from -3 to -4 or higher to theoretically boost a return?
I think there's two parts to the question: where is the initial line set, and what makes it move?
Many people think the initial line is set at a point designed to equalize betting over time. My understanding is this is false--they set the initial line at the point they believe to be most accurate assessment of the game, then adjust only when they feel there's a significant variation in betting such that they want to pull money in on the other side.
This is because the sharps have a lot of money to bet if the line gets too far out of whack from the 'true best predicted outcome' of the game, and will do so quickly if it does. So, as the ESPN article dynomite quoted from notes, when the line moves the sharps jump in on the other side and tend to equalize betting. And if they set the initial line at a place driven by something other than their best assessment of the outcome, the sharps would come in early and very, very heavy on that number.
Unless the books are expecting a lot of late money coming in on the Broncos at +3 today/sunday, I'm having a a hard time understanding carrying an 80/20 position from a risk management position.
Yeah. And "the sharps will throw tons of money on the other side" thing makes no sense; you don't _have_ to accept infinite bets. If/when things come close to equilibrium, you move the line back or stop taking bets.
I would assume that during the regular season, the aggregated betting amounts are probably close to evenly split, even if the lines are not necessarily set for that purpose. After all, the house almost assuredly wins on the aggregate betting.
As for a game like this, the casinos are not assuming that much risk. Yes, they could lose money if the Pats win by 4 or more. But the casino also wins when the bettors make various side bets (score at half time, etc.), or make bets on their alma mater's college basketball game, or stick around for a few rounds of blackjack or roulette, or consume a few beverages at the bar while watching the game on the big screens. The money the casino would have to pay out is a relative blip in the ocean.
As for a game like this, the casinos are not assuming that much risk. Yes, they could lose money if the Pats win by 4 or more. But the casino also wins when the bettors make various side bets (score at half time, etc.), or make bets on their alma mater's college basketball game, or stick around for a few rounds of blackjack or roulette, or consume a few beverages at the bar while watching the game on the big screens. The money the casino would have to pay out is a relative blip in the ocean.
Keep in mind they are making something on each bet, so volume of betting is one of their key goals. Thus, their risk management includes 'volume of bets' as well as their assessment of the likelihood of different outcomes from the betting on the game.