I thought I'd post my take on this Super Bowl. I wrote my analysis as an email to my brother, for the most part I didn't change a thing, just copied it below. Enjoy and good luck!
----------------------------------------------------------
Truth be told, I am sort of rooting for Peyton, he's a
great player, not a jerk, and frankly in my opinion he deserves more
rings than Eli, but that may open up whole other can of worms....
HOWEVER, as I mentioned before, the Vegas "gods" typically don't care
about who deserves anything, or "needs it for legacy" stuff -- if
anything they work that subjective opinion stuff into the line, meaning
the line typically negates all that public sentiment on one side of
things. And here it's clearly all about Peyton.
Must say much of the analysis in your email to me falls under the Peyton-trap I've
been writing about.... We all know he has a good offense to help him
execute and win, and we also know this game means alot to him, to get
monkey off back, to get ring vs. Eli, his legacy -- all that stuff. But that can be said about any QB in the SB, they all want to win it,
badly! So Peyton really, really, really wants to win it?? As in Spinal
Tap, he's turned up to 11 (with 10 highest)?? It gets silly.... And the
fact is for better or worse, he has come up short in big games in the
past, a fact... tomorrow may be different, but facts are facts....
(granted, this Denver team different than past Indy versions, but wasn't
like those Colts teams sucked....)
I still think the line is overly skewed towards Denver. Don't forget,
this game actually opened Seattle -1, favored by Vegas, and Vegas ain't
dumb. The line quickly moved to Denver, in large part due to "dumb"
public money playing the 1) Peyton destiny-legacy-story thing, and 2) siding with
offense over defense. The public often does go with the fireworks of a
scoring machine (Denver) over the more boring stalwart defense
(Seattle), believing the offense will simply outscore the opposition.
But typically I believe great defense vs. great offense -- the defense
typically wins out, esp. at this level of play. And I don't just look at
typical yardage metrics but also combine them with points scored
metrics, often more revealing. Yes, Seattle has a very good D, but whereas their
secondary is the best in league their rush D is just a bit
better than average. Yet where their D really excels is not just in
doing a good job of giving up minimal yardage to foe, but even better
they give up fewer points, which ultimately is what matters! Meaning the
Seattle D is very efficient, allowing teams to get yardage more
midfield but the closer teams get to red zone, the more Seattle buckles
down and stops them from scoring TDs, forcing more often FGs. These
kinds of Ds are deceptively very good because much of that efficiency
and getting better depending on where you are on the field is often lost
in overall team statistics. Compare this to Denver's D, which arguably
has a better rush D than Seattle (!) but just an OK secondary. BUT, when
it comes to efficiency and allowing points, Denver's D comes nowhere
near Seattle's. Denver's defense is much more soft and porous regarding points scored, even within the
red zone, allowing foes to score much more often than does Seattle. This
weakness doesn't hurt Denver as much when they're facing a team that 1)
has a mediocre-to-poor offense and can't exploit Denver defense, and/or
2) the foe has a mediocre-to-poor defense meaning Denver can just
outscore the foe. Neither of those two conditions apply here. Seattle
has a top defense, negating point 2, but they also have a very good
offense (which is getting overlooked because of Peyton & Co.
offense), negating point 1. Both Seattle's rushing and passing game has
outperformed stat-wise versus the level of defenses they've faced,
meaning they should do just fine versus Denver's D.
Two other points. As for turnovers, you may be right that they don't
become a factor, but I tend to doubt it. Seattle has averaged 1.1
turnovers and 2.4 takeaways for +1.3 differential. Denver has averaged
1.6 turnovers and 1.4 takeaways for -0.2 differential, or a whopping
+1.5 combined differential favoring Seattle. Just in this post-season,
Seattle has a +3 TO differential and Denver has -2 TO differential. I
know, I know, turnovers can't be predicted, they tend to be random,
etc., and mind you Denver is in SB despite -0.2 TO differential (they
often overcome TOs). But have to think the way Seattle D plays, they're
always looking to strip ball and create turnovers, so less by chance or
random. And turnovers at this level, in the Super Bowl, is a huge game
changer. Look at last year's SB, SF was just -1 in TO differential, enough to
tip scales. And consider the team with the fewest turnovers in the
Super Bowl is now 35-3 straight-up. In fact, I think one of the better
props is which team will have more turnovers, with Denver at -150 and
Seattle +120. Even Vegas has Denver as a strong favorite to be the team
with more turnovers, undoubtedly based on the numbers I just cited.
However, it's interesting that Vegas has this -150 line on the prop, and the
team with more turnovers is 3-35 in Super Bowl, and yet Denver is
favored to win the game.... I guess Denver is expected to once again
overcome turnovers, or Denver as the favorite more a result of "dumb"
public money (I heavily lean to latter, as already discussed above).
Finally, I also wanted to mention the playing surface. Much is being
written about the weather, but it's supposed to be a balmy 50 degrees
tomorrow afternoon in north Jersey, getting down to 40 degrees for much
of the game -- not bad, or MUCH better than what was feared. And wind is
supposed to be 5-7 mph, again not bad. So weather shouldn't be a
factor. However, for what it's worth, Denver is 11-6 ATS overall, very
good, but just 1-3 ATS in games played on turf. Right, those games are
on the road and takes away home field edge, but this is ATS, not SU,
which factors that in, and also this SB, to be played on turf, is an
away game (neutral field). The last three years, Denver is 3-7 ATS on
turf, meaning 1-3 this season, but still still bad 2-4 in two prior
seasons. Hmmm. Meanwhile, Seattle is 9-6 ATS on turf this year and 25-13
ATS on turf last three years. Also note Seattle is 13-2 SU on turf this
season and 26-12 SU on turf last three seasons (just thought I'd
mention since they're getting +2). Can make the case Seattle's team is
better built for speedier turf than Denver's. Also note Seattle's
takeaways on turf are 2.7 on average (11 games) versus 2.4 overall
average, meaning they seemingly take advantage of the faster, harder
surface to create more turnovers.
Ok, that's enough. Over-analysis? Perhaps. But if Denver wins easy, I'll
at least know that they overcame much of what I wrote above and thus
clearly deserve it! I still think the "true" line should be Seattle -6
or even -7, and this SB reminds most of the TB vs. Oakland SB XXXVII
game, where TB was the dog and had the #1 ranked D and Oakland had the
#1 ranked offense, again much like this game. Also, that game had the
big sideshow storyline of Gruden facing his old team, blah blah blah,
similarly this game has the Peyton sideshow story. TB ended up winning
easy 48-21 (and for what it's worth I do think this SB goes Over 48), in
large part due to Rich Gannon's five (!) INTs, a SB record. Make no
mistake, Peyton by no means is a Rich Gannon (!!), he's far superior,
but it's interesting that the SB MVP for that game was TB secondary
Dexter Jackson -- could history repeat with Seattle's Sherman? Smile.
Call it 28-24 Seattle. Good luck!
