PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Draft Super Bowl Odds


Highagain
04-17-2009, 06:42 PM
Pre-Draft Super Bowl odds courtesy of Bet365.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2uf6lbn.png

Would you change anything?

Thumper
04-17-2009, 06:43 PM
Drop the Cowboys... A LOT.

Strongside
04-17-2009, 06:46 PM
Drop the cowboys, raise the Dolphins, raise the Bengals, drop the Broncos.

The Bengals on the same level with the Raiders surprises me. They are not that far from being a dangerous team.


Drop the Lions :P

PalmerToCJ
04-17-2009, 06:51 PM
Ouch. We sure sucked last year but they could at least give us some credit, we are getting our franchise QB back.

The Cowboys are so high because I'm sure with the amount of fans they have, they get more bets so they have to increase the odds.

BlindSite
04-17-2009, 07:48 PM
Why are the saints at better odds than the Falcons or Panthers?

JPF
04-17-2009, 07:53 PM
I would honestly say drop the Panthers down. There's been no improvement at all this off-season due to the strangle hold on the team because of the situation with Julius Peppers. If anything, they're a worse team at this point than they were last year.

Splat
04-17-2009, 08:04 PM
So your telling me there's a chance?

umphrey
04-17-2009, 08:10 PM
Why are the Patriots #1? No major off season acquisitions. They get Brady back, but they had good QB play last year as well and now their starter is coming off major surgery.

Splat
04-17-2009, 08:16 PM
Why are the Patriots #1?

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7779/belichick1.jpg (http://img4.imageshack.us/my.php?image=belichick1.jpg)

eaglesalltheway
04-17-2009, 09:46 PM
There are a few teams too high based purely off of their chances of winning the superbowl. Based purely off of that, the Pats, Cowboys, Saints, and Falcons are too high, IMO. Even the Steelers are too high, based purely off of the fact that it is nearly impossible to repeat nowadays, though as a team, they should be #1 IMO. There are a few teams that should be higher, personally I think the chargers could be even higher, there are some others as well. But when you take into account fanbase, this list isn't really surprising at all, and teams are roughly where I would've expected.

AJHawk50
04-17-2009, 09:47 PM
I agree, Cowboys should really drop.

abaddon41_80
04-17-2009, 10:01 PM
Bucs, Broncos, and Jags should all be somewhere below the Dolphins.

eaglesalltheway
04-17-2009, 10:03 PM
Bucs, Broncos, and Jags should all be somewhere below the Dolphins.

The Dolphins are low because of their tough schedule, or at least that plays a major part in it.

BlindSite
04-17-2009, 10:28 PM
I would honestly say drop the Panthers down. There's been no improvement at all this off-season due to the strangle hold on the team because of the situation with Julius Peppers. If anything, they're a worse team at this point than they were last year.

As of right now they're the same team they were a year ago minus Ken Lucas. There's no reason to drop the Panthers at all, if anything they should be switched with the saints, who should then be switched with the falcons.

JPF
04-17-2009, 10:57 PM
As of right now they're the same team they were a year ago minus Ken Lucas. There's no reason to drop the Panthers at all, if anything they should be switched with the saints, who should then be switched with the falcons.

Wow. You really don't keep up. The Panthers lost:

* Their top three O-line reserves (Hangartner, Bridges, Omiyale) which all played in at least 10 games last year while compiling 13 starts between them
* A starting corner which at worst leaves them with no nickelback due to Marshall's promotion to the starting lineup (please, don't mention Dante Wesley)
* A veteran longsnapper, and before you poop on this one, stop and think about how many longsnappers you can name..likely the ones you can name is because of blunders which Kyle never had
* The best return guy that the team has had since Steve Smith stopped returning kicks (no, I'm not comparing him to Steve Smith but he was the most consistent the team has had since Smith stopped doing returns)

But yet you think it's "the same team minus Ken Lucas"? Please.

Nitschke-Hawk
04-17-2009, 11:18 PM
Why are the Patriots #1? No major off season acquisitions. They get Brady back, but they had good QB play last year as well and now their starter is coming off major surgery.

they're a dynasty, been the favorite several years in a row now.

RaiderNation
04-18-2009, 12:13 AM
Raiders shouldnt be 3rd IMO. No, they arnt going to win the superbowl, but Im sure we are better then the what that says. We looked like a decent team at the end of the year and with upgrades along the oline and resigning of Aso we should be like 6 or 7 for now. Plus we are likely to get a impact player with #7 and #40

AntoinCD
04-18-2009, 04:40 AM
Why are the Patriots #1? No major off season acquisitions. They get Brady back, but they had good QB play last year as well and now their starter is coming off major surgery.

Fred Taylor, Leigh Bodden, Shawn Springs, Tom Brady coming back healthy, 4 first day draft picks, 6 picks in the top 100. And thats a team that went 11-5 last year with a guy who hadn't started a QB since high school(enter Tom Brady), a leaky secondary(enter Bodden and Springs plus I would guess at least one first day pick) and no pass rush(once again there are draft picks for that). I would say the Patriots should be favourites with the Giants just slightly behind

DeathbyStat
04-18-2009, 06:51 AM
The Bengals are my sleeper team for next year, them and the Texans


I can see them grabbing the two AFC wild cards

wicket
04-18-2009, 07:08 AM
I'd like the odds on the packers and panthers if I were a betting man. Also think that pitt should be at 8-1 alongside new england. They basicly lost noone relevant (right??) and will only get stronger after the draft. Also it would be nice for their play to have an actual healthy runningback

AntoinCD
04-18-2009, 07:22 AM
I'd like the odds on the packers and panthers if I were a betting man. Also think that pitt should be at 8-1 alongside new england. They basicly lost noone relevant (right??) and will only get stronger after the draft. Also it would be nice for their play to have an actual healthy runningback

True but they will have 5 starters in their front 7 over the age of 30 on opening day. Obviously they have to be counted as one of the preseason favourites but I like the Pats and Giants slightly better.

I think the Eagles would be the best value bet out of any team there

eaglesalltheway
04-18-2009, 08:56 AM
I'd like the odds on the packers and panthers if I were a betting man. Also think that pitt should be at 8-1 alongside new england. They basicly lost noone relevant (right??) and will only get stronger after the draft. Also it would be nice for their play to have an actual healthy runningback

I saw on NFL network that the Panthers play 15 games against teams with winning records last year, and the only losing record they face is the Bills at 7-9. I know last years winning percentage doesn't count for much know, but when you are playing nothing but solid to great teams, that is tough. I personally think, with the last half of their season, it is going to be very tough for the Panthers to make the playoffs.

wicket
04-18-2009, 09:15 AM
I saw on NFL network that the Panthers play 15 games against teams with winning records last year, and the only losing record they face is the Bills at 7-9. I know last years winning percentage doesn't count for much know, but when you are playing nothing but solid to great teams, that is tough. I personally think, with the last half of their season, it is going to be very tough for the Panthers to make the playoffs.

jep the entire nfc south has an insainly tough scedule:
NFC South last year: Panthers(12-4), Falcons(11-5), Bucs(9-7)and Saints(8-8)
They obviously have to play all teams but themselves twice so that already makes six tough games.
NFC East last year: Giant(12-4) Eagles(9-6-1) Cowboys(9-7) Skins(8-8)
another tough game. Luckily they will be the prime contenders for the wild card spots and have a pretty tough scedule themselves.
AFC East last year: Dolphins(11-5) Patriots(11-5) Jets(9-7) Bills(7-9)

Last two games:
Panthers: Vikings(10-6) and Cardinals(9-7)
Falcons: Bears(9-7) and 49ers(7-9)
Bucs: Packers(6-10) and Seahawks(4-12)
Saints Li:)ns(0-16) and Rams(2-14)

Luckily my saints have those last two but for the rest life is gonna be rough. At least our main opponents play the AFC west to make there scedule tough as well (oh wait the afc west blows major donkey dick and rivals the nfc west for worst division despite the Lions efford to get the NFC north in there)

BlindSite
04-18-2009, 06:52 PM
Wow. You really don't keep up. The Panthers lost:

* Their top three O-line reserves (Hangartner, Bridges, Omiyale) which all played in at least 10 games last year while compiling 13 starts between them
* A starting corner which at worst leaves them with no nickelback due to Marshall's promotion to the starting lineup (please, don't mention Dante Wesley)
* A veteran longsnapper, and before you poop on this one, stop and think about how many longsnappers you can name..likely the ones you can name is because of blunders which Kyle never had
* The best return guy that the team has had since Steve Smith stopped returning kicks (no, I'm not comparing him to Steve Smith but he was the most consistent the team has had since Smith stopped doing returns)

But yet you think it's "the same team minus Ken Lucas"? Please.

Omiyale was a nothing hack so he's no great loss, Bridges might hurt if our Right guard goes down again, Hangartner I agree was a big loss, but we've got a could of mid draft picks and still a bit of money for Hurney to find us two back up offensive linemen.

At Nickel, CJ Wilson is likely to take over, he was a steal where we got him in the draft and the team has been enamoured with his talent ever since. The guy is a riser and he'll almost certainly be our nickel come game one.

All you're crying about is a backup and an over the hill cornerback. That's no reason to put us behind the Saints in ability for the coming year.

bearsfan_51
04-18-2009, 07:01 PM
This is based off of Vegas' ability to make money. That's it. Don't use these as anything more than that.

PACKmanN
04-18-2009, 08:42 PM
Steelers should be number 1. They are the team to beat and still a very talented one.

JonasBlane
04-18-2009, 09:12 PM
How does one go about making a bet on a team at this stage to win the SB? I would like to put $20 or so on my Steelers, but all betting sites I've ever encountered make you jump through many hoops to sign up, then many more to get your money.

JPF
04-19-2009, 09:05 AM
All you're crying about is a backup and an over the hill cornerback. That's no reason to put us behind the Saints in ability for the coming year.

And all you're doing is overlooking the fact that those backups I'm "crying over" started nearly a season's worth of games and were a key reason our ground game was as successful as it was and at the moment are being replaced on the depth chart by guys that were on the practice squad last year.

Add to that the Panthers haven't addressed any needs they had because of the stranglehold Peppers has on the cap, the franchise having no first round pick (you know, a first rounder, the round you're most likely to get a player that can make an immediate impact), and of course all of this isn't addressing the fact that the head coach has never proven he can follow a winning season up with another winning season.

So what reason is there to not think the Saints and perhaps a few other teams haven't jumped ahead of us at the moment with the moves they have made this off-season while we're standing pat?

Either way, I'm done with this discussion with you. I've put actual facts into my side of it while all you've done is dismiss legitimate points as someone "crying over" them.

vikes_28
04-19-2009, 04:42 PM
Vikes, saints, and cowboys should be dropped a lot.

PoopSandwich
04-19-2009, 04:46 PM
Vikes, saints, and cowboys should be dropped a lot.

I actually think the Vikes could have a really good team this year... I hope they make a move for Quinn because that would set them up really well for the future, they would just need a good possession receiver.

vikes_28
04-19-2009, 04:50 PM
I actually think the Vikes could have a really good team this year... I hope they make a move for Quinn because that would set them up really well for the future, they would just need a good possession receiver.

Oh for sure. They could have a great year. IF they make a move on Quinn. But chances are, Chilly won't move on him. Cause Chilly is a stubborn sonofabitch.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
04-19-2009, 04:55 PM
I think the Ravens should be higher than the Vikings, Saints, Eagles, and the Chargers.