North American

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Jan 11 15:56
Date Joined: 01 Jun 06
| Topic/replies: 19 | Blogger: lefgend's blog
I just can't begin to justify why the team at home with a superior season record. The team who played Green Bay tough home + away (one win each) are better than 5/1 for the Superbowl while Green Bay are worse than 2/1.

That's before you factor in the weather, the extra week off and the Patriots being knocked out, which helps the Bears in a potential SB match-up more than it helps the Packers imo.

Bears to win SB are value bet of 2011 so far.
Pause Switch to Standard View Does the market think Packers at home?
Show More
Report Ross8481 January 17, 2011 6:07 PM GMT
Strange price atm, will surely get bigger later in the week.

Maybe the masses are looking at the gulf in class in qb's are then betting accordingly.

Will be a tough game, but fancy the Pack more than ever after the last 4 weeks.

Playing the Bears this time with more of a running game threat, and a qb in ridiculous form
Report the happy lagger January 18, 2011 7:17 PM GMT
agree with a lot you say, even though im big for gbp, but the price diff is way to big, the weather shouldent really come into it, its hardly tropical in green bay, if you look at the last game between the two, saw gbp missing a lot of catches, and now with starks on fire, i think they edge it.
Report Bullwinkle January 18, 2011 8:47 PM GMT
Can't see the Packs estblishing a good run game against the Chicago defence this week. Don't think Rodgers will get the time/space to exploit his receivers that he got in Atlanta. Expect a low scoring game with Bears edging given home advantage.
Report Bullwinkle January 18, 2011 8:50 PM GMT
Pack only rushed for 124 total yards in two games adainst Bears this year and AR got 40 of those
Report lefgend January 18, 2011 8:56 PM GMT
Hi Happy Lagger, I didn't make it clear but the reason I say the weather will be a factor is because the Bears have a more proven run game.  Not because GB doesn't get cold weather.  This guy Starks has had one and a half good games and GB all of a sudden have a good run game according to some pundits.  Not buying it myself. 

Green Bay can win but I'm actually in mild shock about their Superbowl odds.  Haven't people learned anything from Jets beating Pats and Seahawks beating Saints? And those two results are far greater upsets than Bears beating Packers in Soldier Field would be. They've already done that it once this season, anyway!
Report grayhawk January 18, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
I'm knacker deep on Green Bay but have to say i'm surprised they're as short.
Report HARRY22 January 18, 2011 10:09 PM GMT
They have a good running game because they are getting great blocking...the running game is enough to open up the passing game..rodgers will rip them apart.
Report horse9 January 18, 2011 10:25 PM GMT
I don't think the weather will be a factor, both play outdoors in theNorth and are equally used to snow and win, that said the early forecast is for clear and light winds so Packers aerial game will have no restrictions.
And that I think is the difference, Packers have the most destructive offence in football, they can move downfield quicly, target 9 different men and score on just about every drive.
Bears have a more conservative offence, run first get the run defence to push up in the box then find holes for the passing game.
I'm already on the Packers bandwagon, stand to win a sum that will comfortably pay for Cheltenham, and I say this without blinkers but the only team I think can stop them lifting the pot is Pittsburgh
Report The real Moaner January 18, 2011 10:43 PM GMT
I don't want to criticse Green Bay, but I find it very interesting that Football Outsiders has the odds at around.

Pittsbugh - 2.7
Green Bay - 3.9
Chicago - 4.8
New York - 6

They also have the Green Bay / Chicago match up as 50.4% to 49.6%.

I'd say that is generous to Chicago but the fact remains that, like the Patriots, the market is obsessed by a good looking offense who have turned in a very good recent performance.

However, taking Aaron Rodgers out of the equation, it is asinine to expect Green Bay to be able to throw the ball as well in Chicago as they did in Atlanta.

For one, Atlanta was a dome. Chicago is likely to see a very cold, windy day and has a horrible field.
Secondly, Chicago's pass rush, secondary and general defence is better than Atlanta's.
Thirdly, you won't be able to complete 50 - 75% of your throws against a Dime CB who has no coverage skills.

The current price of 1.56 is beyond words. It is one of the most ridiculous I have seen on here.

But then again - the market has a love towards Aaron Rogers and a pure hatred of Jay Cutler.
Report lefgend January 18, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
Moaner - couldn't agree with you more mate! It seems the Pack bandwagoners can't see anything but a Pack win but the Bears backers can see it going either way.

Horse9 - How can you have watched Jets beat Pats and Seahawks beat Saints and say you can only see two teams winning it? This is as genuine a four horse race as a major sporting event can be.
Report CJ January 19, 2011 2:50 PM GMT
The Bears are one dimensional, stop Forte and GB win. Chicago tried their best to knock GB out in week 17, and failed to move the ball all game. GB can pass, and also have more of a run game than they've had al season. Don't see the conditions being a problem to a west coast offence, the screen pass has helped GB kill teams all year. The pitch is a leveller, but GB will overcome that.

The earlier win at Soldier Field was a fluke, GB penalised to almost 200 yards, ahd Td's and interceptions wiped out. The Bears MVP that game was the officials. If the Seahawks can put points on the Bears, i'm damn sure Rodgers can.
Report HARRY22 January 19, 2011 5:03 PM GMT
lol cj mvp zebras...yes that late game monday was laughable...the packers look good against the love an early lead for the packers and i can see them strolling...
Report horse9 January 19, 2011 7:22 PM GMT

Yeah it's been a crazy season.
I just think the Pack have too many all round weapons - Bears were 11-5, managed to lose games at home to Skins and Seahawks (13-19 season record, 6-10 road record) and were generally regarded as one of the worst #2 seeds in memory, probably because of the Cutler factor, they've not struggled with injuries and nicked the vital win against a depleated Pack when Pack gave up something like 165 yards in pens.
The bigger issue for them is how they leaked so many yards and points in the 4th quarter against Seahawks last week when more ruthless teams would have shut them down.
I may well be proved wrong but the Bears just don't have what it takes to win a championship IMO.
Jets are a different story, they can squeeze the life out of most offences, though I think the way Rodgers is playing and the way his receivers break open they'd come unstuck against the Packers.
Steelers for my money have a decent pass rush, great run defence, a solid running game and can get it done through the air, they seem string in all depts for me.
I agree that the Packers are too short for the championship game and for superbowl, but they look worthy favs for me and if Jets can find a way of beating Steelers and assuming Pack get past Bears, Packers will be sub 1.5 for the big gig
Report The real Moaner January 19, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
Stop Forte and GB win? Forte is a horrible RB who shouldn't really be a starter. It's only Cutler's arm strength that gets any running room for him.
Report lefgend January 19, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
CJ - How are Bears more one dimensional than the Packers? The way I see it, either Rodgers wins it for the Pack or he doesn't although in your opinion the Bears are dependent on Matt Forte? Strange view and some would say completely wrong.

I've decided that Pack are so short because they are seen as a "blowout" team.  Its hard to see Steelers blowing out Jets or vice versa, its hard to see Bears blowing out the Pack so people are basing their assertions on the strong win against Atlanta. 

Dangerous, when you consider Atlanta were a good but unspectacular team who got a boost in their record by playing the NFC West and teams like the Bengals, Panthers x2 and Browns.

The two games at Soldier Field and Lambeau were close and the same people who are calling the Bears win "lucky" (why? Because the Packers lacked discipline and gave up 150 yards of penalties?) are failing to mention that Packers played Bears in what was fundamentally a dead rubber game for them.
Report Ross8481 January 19, 2011 11:04 PM GMT
Pack aren't one dimensional, their defence has won them  a few games this season - like the 9-0 win against the jets at meadowlands and against the bears in week 17.
Report lefgend January 19, 2011 11:06 PM GMT
You're right. Who said Packers were one-dimensional? I disagree with them.
Report Ross8481 January 19, 2011 11:09 PM GMT
Report db1974 January 20, 2011 4:08 PM GMT
Bears didn't played at Lambeau as if it was a dead rubber though. Their starters played for the whole game.

They played to put the Packers out so as to avoid Sunday's scenario and they couldn't do it.
Report CJ January 20, 2011 4:42 PM GMT
..and scored a paltry 3 points when they had no pressure whatsoever.

This time the pressure is even, lets see how Chicago cope with it for the first time! (GB have played with it since mid December and will do just fine again.
Report lefgend January 20, 2011 7:33 PM GMT
Regardless of your views, i'm pretty sure the odds will shorten the closer we get to game time.  The Pack backers will see an opportunity to profit take on some good green wary of the risk of yet another (mildly) surprising NFL result, the casual punters will see a genuine four horse race and back the long shot.  If you're backing the Bears i'd take the very generous prices on offer now.
Report HARRY22 January 20, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
Ive seen plenty of teams move the ball with some ease v the bears,i think the pack offence just had a bad day in wisconsin v the bears..the bears were desperate to win that game as they knew this sundays game would see the pack return,they didnt want the cheese heads imo..the bears need another bad offensive display from packers if they are too win.
Report anton_chigurh January 21, 2011 12:47 AM GMT
But do you think the odds fairly reflect that reality Harry?
Report HARRY22 January 21, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
no the odds really did surprise me.chicago is a team that seems to make things happen from it special teams,turnovers etc,they can be annoying..i do believe if packers get a lead it will be easy....i thought between 1.7-1.8 which is miles off what they are.
Report anton_chigurh January 21, 2011 2:49 AM GMT
Cheers :)
Report d13phe January 21, 2011 12:59 PM GMT
Do we think these odds would be the same if they weren't the Green Bay Packers (one of the nation's favourites)

I think that Green Bay could win but the price is frankly ridiculous given what we have seen in the previous two matchups this year
Report HARRY22 January 21, 2011 1:16 PM GMT
Not sure if you can look at the last 2 games...think a few people have went over this a few times,their is no dominant team in the league..lot of people thought it was the patriots,they prob were if you go off who they have beaten in the regular season..detroit are now a team who you cant take for granted Shocked who would of thought...i thought the bears away was always going to be more difficult than atlanta just because its outdoors and potential bad weather and they have a much better D and special teams...odds are too short but i hope they live upto their hype Grin
Report db1974 January 21, 2011 3:47 PM GMT
The more I think about this game the less confident I am about a Packer win. Just keep coming back to the way the Bears shut down the Pack at Lambeau.

1. Homefield advantage with crowd baying for Green blood
2. Inter-divisional rivalry going back to forever
3. Getting no love from the experts in the media or Vegas

I have backed the Packers for the NFC @ 16/1 and for the SB @ 12/1 so I am going to lay off to go equal green on the NFC and take the hit on the SB bet if the Bears win
Report CJ January 21, 2011 4:52 PM GMT
Shut the Pack down at Lambeau, remind me who scored 3?

;) We'll win, keep the faith, keep the green.
Report horse9 January 21, 2011 6:21 PM GMT
db - the line has moved from -3 to -3.5, -4 in a place.
The Packers money line mved from -175 to -200.
Packers are getting plenty of love from Vegas !
Report HARRY22 January 22, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
CJ Joined: 22 Jul 01
Replies: 1548 21 Jan 11 16:52 
Shut the Pack down at Lambeau, remind me who scored 3?

yes they never seem to mention this just that they stopped the packers,ermm who won the game Grin
Report horse9 January 22, 2011 8:55 AM GMT
And something Simms said on commo last week, the Bears were massive triers that day because they knew they could knock the Pack out and they could be a scary play off team, as has been proved.
Momentum is a huge thing in this, Bears enter this game on the back of allowing 21 4th qarter points to the Seahwaks, Packers enter the game fresh from anhialating the #1 Falcons in the dome
Report lefgend January 22, 2011 10:45 AM GMT
Horse - They'd already sewn up the game and won by 11 despite the 21 4th quarter points.  I wouldn't read much into that at all. Yes, they tried in Lambeau but they still fundamentally had very little to play for and the Pack were fighting for their lives.  For example, Bears gameplanning could easily have been built around staying healthy and a long run in the playoffs in the week preceding the game, regardless of the rivalry between the two teams.
Report HARRY22 January 22, 2011 11:01 AM GMT
end of the day it dont matter who won at which field in what week in what weather...its the NFL,its who prepares the best and who gets a big turnover, who gets some luck..but the best team usually find a way to win and the packers are far superior to the bears if they both play to their potential.
Report horse9 January 22, 2011 11:48 PM GMT
Fair point lefgend but I don't buy that, any team leaking 170 yards and 21 points in 4th quarter tells me they have holes, and if Hass can exploit them then you can bet your life Rodgers can.
For me Bears are a poor #2 team, I'm not saying they can't win but they don't strike me a side who should be making the big gig, Cuttlers pick showed us that he hasn't lost the bonehead play.
Yes I'm talking through my pocket but Pack should have too much for Bears, I doubt I'll be playing because I have enough on Pack outright, but I'm not thinking of chopping because I don't see how the Bears can get past Packers.
Just my view
Report San Quentin January 23, 2011 1:15 PM GMT
thats great keep the price going north tx keep it up horsei
Report middles-for-dough January 23, 2011 1:23 PM GMT
im not going to argue with anyone on here as its the last refuge of the morons

but the packers are not far superior to the bears harry.. they are a very good side i agree, but far superior?

i dont think so
Report HARRY22 January 23, 2011 1:45 PM GMT
Grin ^LOL

if it wasnt for key injuries they would of won the division with ease...the bears had all their tough games at home...jets,patriots,eagles..pack had to travel too all 3 of these teams and they won 2 of them...they are far superior in all departments apart from special teams.
Report HARRY22 January 23, 2011 1:47 PM GMT
And atlanta away...dont think the bears would of had their record if they had them 4 away games.
Report Ross8481 January 23, 2011 1:48 PM GMT
If Cutler gets to the Supberbowl I will not be a happy bunny
Report Saluting Darren Lockyer January 23, 2011 4:01 PM GMT
if there's any justice the packers win this match 7 out of 10 times,nothing wrong with the previous,if anything its not short enough.

If there wasnt a rivalry about the fixture they'd be getting 7.5 points ,not 3
Report BARNEY15C January 23, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
Going for acca on this ...

Green Bay -3.5
Pittsburg -4.0
NY/PIT +38
GB/CHI +42

Good Luck all!!!
Report horse9 January 23, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
I've played the over 43.5 @ 2.14, expect there to be one or two big plays early, get the feeling the Packers may look to make an early statement.
Some spreads, regulations buy of shirts in any Green Bay game, 265 is cheap IMO, bought 2nd quarter points @ 13.5, sold the yardage match bet Jones/Olsen @ 0 - think Pack will get their noses in front and Cutler forced to throw more and Olsen has been his favourite target recently.
GL all
Report the nugget January 23, 2011 7:06 PM GMT
Bears safety is confirmed as active despite missing practice this week.
Report the nugget January 23, 2011 7:09 PM GMT
Chris Harris that is.
Report lefgend January 23, 2011 7:24 PM GMT
Looks like the Pack lovin' is gonna continue until gametime.
Report the nugget January 23, 2011 7:33 PM GMT
How on earth is Reggie White not in that **** name roll given he is probably one of the five greatest players ever Confused
Report hutyee January 23, 2011 7:36 PM GMT
Hester and Forte to turn u tonight
Report The real Moaner January 23, 2011 9:30 PM GMT
Rodgers has really impressed me tonight. It's one thing playing well in a dome against 3 man rushes, a CB with no coverage ability and having a spy on you(!) but he has played very well in the elements against a supposedly good D. Forget the stats, he has been the difference.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.


Instance ID: 13539