Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cowherd's take on the game.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cowherd's take on the game.

    Basically he was leaning towards the Giants but then he pointed out that Vegas odds are what they are for a reason and that Vegas has won 19 out of last 21 Super Bowls so he has now flip flopped and taking the points.

    He has also said that Giants defense may be over-rated by saying the Jets were a locker-room mess, Dallas was no good (Yeah that's what he said), Green Bay didn't play since Christmas, and 49ers has a game manager playing QB. Of course he has conveniently left out Atlanta which totally ruins his argument.

    I'm not too concerned about his reasons on how the defense may be over-rated, but I sort of am curious of the Vegas odds history, if they are so good at picking the winner then there may be a good cause for a real concern as to why Vegas is picking the Patriots, and maybe Giants are not as clear-cut favorite that most Giants fans think they are.

    Anybody with a good knowledge on the gambling scene have any input to add?

  • #2
    Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

    Didn't Vegas pick the Patriots in Feb 2008?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

      But yet when Alex Smith beat New Orleans he was the 2nd coming of Christ? Double standards these days. ESPECIALLY at BSPN

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

        [quote user="NYBlue10"]Basically he was leaning towards the Giants but then he pointed out that Vegas odds are what they are for a reason and that Vegas has won 19 out of last 21 Super Bowls so he has now flip flopped and taking the points.

        He has also said that Giants defense may be over-rated by saying the Jets were a locker-room mess, Dallas was no good (Yeah that's what he said), Green Bay didn't play since Christmas, and 49ers has a game manager playing QB. Of course he has conveniently left out Atlanta which totally ruins his argument.

        I'm not too concerned about his reasons on how the defense may be over-rated, but I sort of am curious of the Vegas odds history, if they are so good at picking the winner then there may be a good cause for a real concern as to why Vegas is picking the Patriots, and maybe Giants are not as clear-cut favorite that most Giants fans think they are.

        Anybody with a good knowledge on the gambling scene have any input to add?[/quote]

        I find that hard to believe. The Giants for sure weren't favored in 2007 against the Pats. I'm sure the Pats weren't favored in 2000 against the Rams. I doubt the Broncos were favored in 1997 against the Packers. Oakland was favored by four points against the Bucs. Were the Packers even favored last year?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

          He's not saying Vegas was right, he's saying they won money. If everybody took the Patriots -10 against us, Vegas was wrong but very rich.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Cowherd's take on the game.



            Vegas is picking against the Giants, but I'm not. 19 for 21 ain't perfect and the Giants were one of those flys in the ointment. Pat should be favored -- they were 13-3 with TB, BB, and 3 SB championships. But we're the better team, now. Plain and simple.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

              [quote user="BigBlue2010"]He's not saying Vegas was right, he's saying they won money. If everybody took the Patriots -10 against us, Vegas was wrong but very rich.[/quote]

              Oh yeah, true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

                [quote user="NYBlue10"]Basically he was leaning towards the Giants but then he pointed out that Vegas odds are what they are for a reason and that Vegas has won 19 out of last 21 Super Bowls so he has now flip flopped and taking the points. He has also said that Giants defense may be over-rated by saying the Jets were a locker-room mess, Dallas was no good (Yeah that's what he said), Green Bay didn't play since Christmas, and 49ers has a game manager playing QB. Of course he has conveniently left out Atlanta which totally ruins his argument. I'm not too concerned about his reasons on how the defense may be over-rated, but I sort of am curious of the Vegas odds history, if they are so good at picking the winner then there may be a good cause for a real concern as to why Vegas is picking the Patriots, and maybe Giants are not as clear-cut favorite that most Giants fans think they are. Anybody with a good knowledge on the gambling scene have any input to add?[/quote]Are you saying that the favorite won 19 of 21 Super Bowls's ?
                Engage brain before speaking.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

                  Cowherd's a fool.

                  Giants' D isn't overrated in the sense that it's all about matchups. Brady is skittish under pressure and if the Pats Oline can't block the Giants' rush then he'll get trucked.

                  On the other hand, if the Giants can't get pressure on Brady he'll likely torch their secondary.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Cowherd's take on the game.



                    I think "vegas has been right 19/21" is incorrect. I bet on most super bowls, and I clearly remember some recent underdogs who won:




                    1) Patriots (when they upset Rams) - huge underdog




                    2) Giants 2007 - big underdog




                    3) Saints 2010 - slight underdog




                    So I count at least 3 (not 2) that vegas was incorrect. And I'm only going back 10 yrs.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

                      [quote user="bledden"]

                      I think "vegas has been right 19/21" is incorrect.* I bet on most super bowls, and I clearly remember some recent underdogs who won:




                      1) Patriots (when they upset Rams) - huge underdog




                      2) Giants 2007 - big underdog




                      3) Saints 2010 - slight underdog




                      So I count at least 3 (not 2) that vegas was incorrect.* And I'm only going back 10 yrs.

                      [/quote]

                      Yeah, I believe you're right. Vegas got killed when the Giants won. The Bucs were also underdogs in 2002.

                      Regardless, Vegas sets lines mainly to spur betting and if gamblers naturally favor a certain team, like Packers and Pats, they put them as favorites in order to get more bets for the underdog. Ultimately, Vegas wants it all to even out for them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Cowherd's take on the game.

                        He's got Cow Dung for brains..............Why do you care what this Cowboy fan has to say?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X