HawkShack.com

Outside of the home team Seahawks.

Here are the odds (Courtesy of Tribune)

Odds to win the 2015 Super Bowl XLIX

Seattle Seahawks 6/1

Denver Broncos 7/1

New England Patriots 15/2

San Francisco 49ers 15/2

Green Bay Packers 12/1

Chicago Bears 20/1

Indianapolis Colts 20/1

New Orleans Saints 20/1

Philadelphia Eagles 22/1

Carolina Panthers 28/1

Kansas City Chiefs 33/1

Pittsburgh Steelers 33/1

Arizona Cardinals 40/1

Atlanta Falcons 40/1

Baltimore Ravens 40/1

Cincinnati Bengals 40/1

Dallas Cowboys 40/1

Houston Texans 40/1

New York Giants 40/1

San Diego Chargers 40/1

Cleveland Browns 50/1

Detroit Lions 50/1

Miami Dolphins 50/1

Minnesota Vikings 50/1

St. Louis Rams 50/1

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 50/1

Washington Redskins 50/1

New York Jets 66/1

Buffalo Bills 75/1

Tennessee Titans 75/1

Jacksonville Jaguars 100/1

Oakland Raiders 100/1


My 3 bets:

1. Indianapolis 20/1 - primarily because they are coming out of the much weaker AFC

2. St. Louis 50/1 - the Best money best on the board in my opinion but the Rams have to make it through the tough NFC.

3. Philadelphia - 22/1 - Great Offense - Great QB and great record over second half of the season.

It looks like you're going for what bets represent the best value... so that's what I'm going with. I would say the bets with the best value based on odds are in no particular order, Atlanta, Cincinnati, New Orleans and Tampa Bay.

I think I'd take the Saints at 20/1 before I took the Colts. When was the last time someone won the NFC South in back-to-back years? But like you, I do like the Rams at 50/1.

Although 6/1 is a horrible bet, it's a huge compliment considering how many teams have repeated over the past 20 years or so.

If I'm betting simply from a value standpoint Tampa at 50/1 would be the bet, the Rams while intriguing IMHO don't match what Tampa does as far as being a complete team, there are still several holes on that team, or unproven commodities.

Colts and Saints are pretty good value.

The Giants would be my long shot pick, simply because they've pulled off some playoff miracles in year's past. Each of their recent playoff runs that ended with 2 SB wins are among the most impressive I've ever seen.

I would bet SF, by a bunch. They lost no one of real value and had a heck of a draft. Next year the 9ers have the same cap problems as we have with Kaper, and the rest, only I think he is a money hog, I don't think RW will be. This year they have a much easier schedule, and our OL is ranked 27th, and is not getting any better. The Niners OL was ranked 9th, and getting way better. Remember folks, we were lucky to win the NFC title game, period.

Are you sure you're not a Niner fan Obi? Luck had nothing to do with that win, anymore than luck played a role in any win by any team throughout the season. I can't stomach Niner fans claiming it, seeing a Hawk fan claim "luck" makes me want to puke.. Did you not watch the game or what? Seattle was taking that#9 o line to the woodshed.all game long, maybe you missed the sacks, forced fumbles and turnovers.

But Human IF they hadn't lost their best lineman, and their best Defensive player do you think we would have won? I know injuries are part of the game, and we would have had an easier time with fully healed Harvin. The refs had nothing to do with my scenario however. NO I am not a 9er fan. Which brings up another question, why do they hate us so much? Its like we are replacing the Dallas Cowboys as their arch enemy. Whoever won that game was going to win the Title period.

In a word? Yes.

obiken wrote:I would bet SF, by a bunch. They lost no one of real value and had a heck of a draft. Next year the 9ers have the same cap problems as we have with Kaper, and the rest, only I think he is a money hog, I don't think RW will be. This year they have a much easier schedule, and our OL is ranked 27th, and is not getting any better. The Niners OL was ranked 9th, and getting way better. Remember folks, we were lucky to win the NFC title game, period.

They're about to lose Aldon Smith for at least a good portion of the season if not the entire season including playoffs. Plus their team is getting old. Frank Gore will be 31, Boldin is 34, Justin Smith 35. I'm not predicting anything like a collapse, but I sure wouldn't bet 'a bunch' on them, not at 15/2, or for comparison's sake, 7.5/1 vs. our 6/1. considering the division they're playing in.

I gotta agree with HC regarding your characterization of our being 'lucky' to win the NFC Championship game. In every relatively close game, there's a number of situations where it's better to be lucky than good. But it would be a gross injustice to characterize the Seahawks as being "lucky" to win the NFC Championship game, as there were "lucky" plays for both teams that IMO tended to even themselves out with regard to the final outcome. Statistically, that game was a dead heat, as total yards were exactly the same, they had 16 first downs, we had 14, we had 8 penalties for 66 yards, they had 7 for 65. The big difference, which usually determines the winner in a close game, was that we had just one turnover while they had 3, all in the 4th quarter.

I do not think it was luck at all we won the NFCC. When you listen to the chatter and when RW goes I can get them to jump offsides and then hits Kearse for the TD, No luck at all. Two pretty evenly matched team yes, luck no way. Kaper pics are not luck. Also the TD to Boldin that was just a few inches from being picked by Earl or at least knocked away you could say that was luck in the 9ers favor.

I have to agree with RD the 9ers are getting older at some positions. Justin Smith is a key cog to the D line. If Aldon is lost for any time and Justin gets hurt they may have a hard time recovering. Then add to it that Bowman will be recovering from his injury.

Also I really think the Hawks are going to be a better team this year. Wit Harvin back in the fold, another year for Kearse's development add the youth on the D-line that should be coming on board. Then the O-line, they can not be much worse so they should be better.

RW will have another year under his belt also and I do not see him going backwards. Should be another fun year.

obiken wrote:But Human IF they hadn't lost their best lineman, and their best Defensive player do you think we would have won? I know injuries are part of the game, and we would have had an easier time with fully healed Harvin. The refs had nothing to do with my scenario however. NO I am not a 9er fan. Which brings up another question, why do they hate us so much? Its like we are replacing the Dallas Cowboys as their arch enemy. Whoever won that game was going to win the Title period.

1. Staley is their best lineman.

2. Iupati (while I'm sure he'll be back) secretly wasn't having a very good season.

3. The Seahawks already had the lead with around 9 minutes left in the game when Bowman got injured. The game had already swung in favor of Seattle at that point. Seattle only had one more drive (not including the kneeldowns). It started in SF territory and only went 10 yards. What exactly do you think Bowman's presence would have changed?

Seattle was better. It wasn't "Luck".

Furthermore, I still think people are paying too much attention to the final score of the NFC Championship and comparing it to the final score of the Superbowl and making the assumption that because the NFC championship was much more competitive that the Superbowl result would be similar, which is a mistake IMO.

The NFC Championship game was the third time two division rivals played eachother in the same year. They are very familiar with eachother and what the other team wants to do, is good at and isn't good at. It's almost inevitable that the game was going to be close.

People keep forgetting how weak SF is on the back end in coverage and how quickly Manning gets the ball out. Seattle was able to completely disrupt the Bronco's offense by being physical with the Bronco's receivers at the line which makes Manning hold the ball just a tick longer and pressure getting into the face of Manning. Seattle was also the best team at defending screens in the league. So when they tried those slip screens on the outside with Demaryius Thomas there was very little yardage after the catch and that play is one of the Bronco's bread and butter plays.

SF doesn't have a Michael Bennett that they are able to slide inside and create pressure inside. The only way they get inside pressure is by blitzing Willis or Bowman (which they are good at), but Manning kills the blitz. Their pass rush comes mostly from Aldon Smith and to a lesser degree from Ahmad Brooks around the edge but Manning is awesome at shifting protection and getting the ball out before the edge rush gets home. SF also doesn't have big enough or good enough corners to prevent guys as large as Thomas and Decker from getting a free release. So I don't believe the rush gets home the way Seattle's rush was getting home. And with Bowman hurt I don't even know who they ask to cover Julius Thomas. They'd have to sacrifice something. Either they take Willis out of the middle of the field or Ahmad Brooks is no longer rushing the passer or Eric Reid covers him which leaves the defense exposed to jump balls down the field. The one thing I know is Donte Whitner can't cover him.

If I were a betting man I'd probably still bet on the 49ers to win that game and overall I think they were the 2nd best team in the league looking at the league as a whole, but I don't think it's anything close to certain that the 49ers run through the Broncos like the Seahawks did. It's easy to fall back on the whole Manning chokes in the big game thing and Denver was a paper tiger. But when you look at that Superbowl you need to realize how perfectly the Seahawks defense matched up with the Bronco's offense. And San Fran doesn't match up anywhere near as well.

In order to even get to the Super Bowl luck has to fall your way throughout the season.
There are big plays and some calls that just work out in your favor sometimes and when it all aligns you get to the top of the mountain.

Luck in the SF game?
Yah. We were lucky they called the play where Sherm tipped the ball to Smith. Dumb on their part but lucky for us.
We were lucky that the play didn't include a pattern that disrupted Smith's followup run to the endzone where he caught the tip.
We were lucky that Kaep hadn't learned to follow his progressions very well leading to INTs earlier in the game.

Then there's the weather and field conditions - lucky at that time of year the field wasn't slick so Sherm could have good footing to make that play.
Luck that we were relatively healthy for that game.

And that's just the one play.
So good fortune does play a role just as bad luck plays a role in a loss. Things like Refs confusing a helmet with the ball and giving a first down is an extreme example.

Kili I don't know If I agree but that was a hell of post based in FB logic! I knew we win the SB because I never saw Denver's defense as any threat. Maybe its a reach to say that SF would have beat them 52-21, based on comparative scoring. I am sorry IF my post sounded anything like quasi treason!! Just respect for the enemy. BTW my brother in Bellevue gave up being a Niners fan after 30 years due to Harbaugh, not sure why??!!!