Go UNDER on Super Bowl!

[ddittie]

I don't know how many times I've lost betting the over on these games where you have powerful and 'unstoppable' offenses facing the top defenses in the league, but I'm finally at that age of wisdom to understand why defenses win championships.

The Barkley train stops in Philadelphia, there won't be any long TD runs given up by this KC defense, and conversely, the Eagles defense will make the Chiefs fight for every yard without any assistance needed from the refs.

There will be a lot of settling for FGs in this game, and more punts than expected, as 3rd and long situations will come about more often due to both run games being stymied.

With that long explanation, I firmly believe the public will go with the points, as they always do, and the smart money will be on the under. It COULD lose, but it shouldn't. It's backed by two of the leagues best defenses getting an extra week to prepare.

GL with your bets!

[mjsuax13]

Well said. I agree and also get burned a lot on OVERS. Defenses will show here.

[Eddy Munny]

Lol which one of these offenses is supposed to be "powerful and unstoppable?"

[lakerboy]

Total seems to be high. Then again when they played two years ago it was 38-35

[Eddy Munny]

Setting aside recency bias, the Chiefs fielded a sluggish, underwhelming offense for the better part of the year. The Eagles have been largely one dimensional on offense and looked anemic in their first two playoff games, scoring aided by special teams and defense. They both had "get right" games in the Conference Ships but the Bills and Football Team leave a lot to be desired on the defensive side.

[ThaTopMoron]

Total seems to be high. Then again when they played two years ago it was 38-35

Hurts dropped the ball for easy KC TD and long punt return setup KC for short field TD

I can see these teams getting to 50+ but getting to 70+ like 2 years ago would be tough

[brock]

KC loaded the line and gave Allen a tough time.
See some of the same thing vrs the Eagles.

[wombat]

Indoors with no weather to contend with, these offenses will go buck wild.

[Steelers05]

I used to think unders were sharp but today betting unders will lead you to broke, that's pretty much any sport.

[Headsterx]

Gimme that 50 pts! Over, baby!

[blankoblanco]

Setting aside recency bias, the Chiefs fielded a sluggish, underwhelming offense for the better part of the year. The Eagles have been largely one dimensional on offense and looked anemic in their first two playoff games, scoring aided by special teams and defense. They both had "get right" games in the Conference Ships but the Bills and Football Team leave a lot to be desired on the defensive side.

Agree with all of the above. It obviously will depend on a lot of factors including how the refs call the game, but to me this seems like as good an Under as you'll get in a big game.

[magpie878]

Against a horrible banged up Green Bay team, the Eagles D let up 10.
Against an outmatched good-weather team in the Rams, the Eagles D let up 22 and came close to losing late.
Against an upstart Washington team, they let up 23, with Washington turning it over a LOT.

Any reason to think the Chiefs can't top any of the highest so far, of 23?

Against a fair-weather team in the Texans, the Chiefs D let up 14.
Against a good Bills offense, the Chiefs let up 29 and came close to losing late.

Any reason the Eagles can't come close to mid-high 20's?

The OU is certainly attainable despite these "vaunted" defenses. Or take an alternate number and lower it a little if you like the over.

[ddittie]

Lol which one of these offenses is supposed to be "powerful and unstoppable?"

My main point is that in the past, when there were scenarios of the #1 offense matched up against the #1 defense, in almost every single instance, the defensive side won the game and held the offense to very little points, and the game went under.
It applies here because we have not 1, but two of the top defenses in the league, and to your point, they are against offenses that aren't #1.

Against a horrible banged up Green Bay team, the Eagles D let up 10.
Against an outmatched good-weather team in the Rams, the Eagles D let up 22 and came close to losing late.
Against an upstart Washington team, they let up 23, with Washington turning it over a LOT.

Any reason to think the Chiefs can't top any of the highest so far, of 23?

Against a fair-weather team in the Texans, the Chiefs D let up 14.
Against a good Bills offense, the Chiefs let up 29 and came close to losing late.

Any reason the Eagles can't come close to mid-high 20's?

The OU is certainly attainable despite these "vaunted" defenses. Or take an alternate number and lower it a little if you like the over.

See my above point. In the past, I used the same logic when betting the Over, and I lost almost every single time. These are two of the top defenses in the league. They have an extra week to prepare. They have all the prior games to look at and learn from. I'm on the Under.

I believe the Chiefs score 27 here, and the Eagles 24 at most. In most cases, they will have between 17-23 pts.

[ddittie]

For reference this is what I’ll be betting on.

[ddittie]

taking KC O17.5 off actually increases the odds to +900.

[SundanceKid]

Two years ago this game was played in Arizona on some Super Grass a man spent 2 years growing only for the league to dump a thousand gallons of paint onto the surface for the logos. Eagles D line claimed they were playing on ice. This year, the playing surface is supreme and ideal for traction. Will that be a determining factor in this matchup?

[dxp]

unless you're buying a ton of points for parlay reasons, and you're already confident in an over/under, you shouldn't be wasting time on it. you can't predict a team fumbling on their own 15, a broken coverage deep bomb for a TD, a 95 yard kickoff return or anything of that nature. a team can be nursing a double digit lead in the 4th and eat 7 minutes running the ball. there are way too many scenarios.

as for the eagles defense; the packers were still the 5th best offense, regardless. 10 points. the rams were 15th and had 15 points with a few minutes left. prevent defense gave them an easy 7. also, losing mitchell early on hurt them. rodgers gets picked on. the rams specifically did this to them twice. washington was 7th in offense, and scored 23. offensively, kc is 17th. the eagles have only given up more than 20 a handful of games. and it's usually trash time TD's or some injury type situation.

[magpie878]

I believe the Chiefs score 27 here, and the Eagles 24 at most. In most cases, they will have between 17-23 pts.

DK has over 43.5 total at -235. There ya go, you're covered.

[magpie878]

as for the eagles defense; the packers were still the 5th best offense, regardless. 10 points. the rams were 15th and had 15 points with a few minutes left. prevent defense gave them an easy 7. also, losing mitchell early on hurt them. rodgers gets picked on. the rams specifically did this to them twice. washington was 7th in offense, and scored 23. offensively, kc is 17th. the eagles have only given up more than 20 a handful of games. and it's usually trash time TD's or some injury type situation.

You cannot say "the Packers were still the 5th best offense" and apply that to the playoff game. Their fifth-best offense was NOT the product that was on the field that day. That's just an unfair relation of stats and rank. They were crippled.

Who cares if the Rams only had 15 late? They got 22, and came very close with a chance to get another TD. Do you think the Chiefs will drop easy passes left and right like the Rams did?
Selective excuses.. "trash time TDs" happen and count just like the rest. You're quoting offensive ranks of teams, then not stating how many of THOSE were trash time TDs.. How many points would Washington have gotten if they didn't keep fumbling? Injuries happen. You're just picking and choosing things to fit the narrative.

[dxp]

You cannot say "the Packers were still the 5th best offense" and apply that to the playoff game. Their fifth-best offense was NOT the product that was on the field that day. That's just an unfair relation of stats and rank. They were crippled.

Who cares if the Rams only had 15 late? They got 22, and came very close with a chance to get another TD. Do you think the Chiefs will drop easy passes left and right like the Rams did?
Selective excuses.. "trash time TDs" happen and count just like the rest. You're quoting offensive ranks of teams, then not stating how many of THOSE were trash time TDs.. How many points would Washington have gotten if they didn't keep fumbling? Injuries happen. You're just picking and choosing things to fit the narrative.

says the person specifically latching on to certain things; banged up team, outmatched good weather team, close to losing it late, turning it over a lot. there is no narrative. they are the best defensive team in the league. they gave up 17.8 points during the season. it's 18.3 in the postseason (2nd to the texans.)

how many points would washington have gotten if they didn't fumble? the hell kind of question is that? not only can one not answer it, but it's why the eagles defense is so good. the commanders didn't turn it over against the bucs or lions, but did so 4 times to the eagles. and 5 times the previous game against them. do they just forget how to play fukin football against them? or do you think maybe it's because the eagles are so good creating that?

"Any reason to think the Chiefs can't top any of the highest so far, of 23?" yeah, maybe the fact they averaged 22.6 per game on the year? and just hit that mark of 23 against the texans, at home, with a pitiful 212 total yards? the eagles have very similar, but better, defensive numbers than the texans.

again, one cannot control or predict the many situations that occur during the game. the over/under at 50 is nothing but a coin flip.

[ddittie]

says the person specifically latching on to certain things; banged up team, outmatched good weather team, close to losing it late, turning it over a lot. there is no narrative. they are the best defensive team in the league. they gave up 17.8 points during the season. it's 18.3 in the postseason (2nd to the texans.)

how many points would washington have gotten if they didn't fumble? the hell kind of question is that? not only can one not answer it, but it's why the eagles defense is so good. the commanders didn't turn it over against the bucs or lions, but did so 4 times to the eagles. and 5 times the previous game against them. do they just forget how to play fukin football against them? or do you think maybe it's because the eagles are so good creating that?

"Any reason to think the Chiefs can't top any of the highest so far, of 23?" yeah, maybe the fact they averaged 22.6 per game on the year? and just hit that mark of 23 against the texans, at home, with a pitiful 212 total yards? the eagles have very similar, but better, defensive numbers than the texans.

again, one cannot control or predict the many situations that occur during the game. the over/under at 50 is nothing but a coin flip.

It's a coin flip based on what the publics betting habits will be. Not based on analytics.

Here's some actual data.
PPG for KC= 23.16
PPG for PHI= 28.4
Total= 51.56

APPG for KC= 19.42
APPG PHI= 17.9
Total= 37.32

Offensive Rank (PPG)
KC: 15th
PHI: 7th

Defensive Rank (PPG)
KC: 4th
PHI: 2nd

Philadelphia gave up 22 points per game against this year's playoff teams. (So their defense allowed 4.1 more pts on average to the better teams).
They scored 29.36 pts per game vs those opponents, and went 8-3.

KC gave up 18.7 points per game against this year's playoff teams. (They gave up fewer points vs the better teams.) This is not counting the last game of the season where they rested half their starters vs Denver.
They scored 24.1 points per game vs them, and went 9-1 (again not counting the last game of season vs Denver.)

So for me it boils down to a couple of things. There are more scoring outcomes that go Under than Over. Since they average around 53.46 pts vs good opponents but allow 40.7.
So essentially, the total is splitting what the offenses score on avg vs what they allow, like the coin flip you referred to.

Philadelphia's offense is based primarily on the run game, and I just don't think, despite Barkley's outstanding season and their continued dominance, that Kansas City can't stop em. It's a relatively easy gameplay. Stop the run, force Jalen to beat us with the pass. If they can do that, they will gain an extra possession imo due to picking up an interception.

Patrick Mahomes is the best QB of all-time imo. This game will be close, and I give the nod to the team with the best QB in close games. Give me Chiefs ball, needing to score to win on the last possession, I'm betting everything I can.

[ddittie]

I'll add one more thing.
In 20 games for the Chiefs and Eagles this season, which were vs the playoff teams (not counting the last one vs Denver), they scored 50 pts or more in 8 games. So, 40%.

[magpie878]

says the person specifically latching on to certain things; banged up team, outmatched good weather team, close to losing it late, turning it over a lot. there is no narrative. they are the best defensive team in the league. they gave up 17.8 points during the season. it's 18.3 in the postseason (2nd to the texans.)


how many points would washington have gotten if they didn't fumble? the hell kind of question is that? not only can one not answer it, but it's why the eagles defense is so good. the commanders didn't turn it over against the bucs or lions, but did so 4 times to the eagles. and 5 times the previous game against them. do they just forget how to play fukin football against them? or do you think maybe it's because the eagles are so good creating that?

"Any reason to think the Chiefs can't top any of the highest so far, of 23?" yeah, maybe the fact they averaged 22.6 per game on the year? and just hit that mark of 23 against the texans, at home, with a pitiful 212 total yards? the eagles have very similar, but better, defensive numbers than the texans.

again, one cannot control or predict the many situations that occur during the game. the over/under at 50 is nothing but a coin flip.

My initial post posted facts. Not what ifs. The follow up was how easy it is to pick certain things to fit your own narrative, so I did it myself. Amazing you couldn't figure that out.

[Headsterx]

For reference this is what I’ll be betting on.

Wait, what!? You’re taking both TT but the game under? So you’re looking for that sweet spot, seems unlikely.

[blankoblanco]

Feels kinda bad to lose the under here. Barkley was contained, Mahomes was absolutely swarmed for most of the game. If that's all you knew, the under sounds great. I still don't think it was a bad call at all. Just the volatility and unpredictability that comes with the NFL

[ddittie]

Garbage time points when the defense let off the gas. Had this game been competitive to the end, the Under hits imo. Those two interceptions that led to 14 pts was something I would have never guessed Mahomes would do in a big game. You can blame the pressure, but he looked awful.

[2Sweeet]

Stfu u moron

[sunshine11]

Excuses excuses.

[ddittie]

Excuses excuses.

Yeah. It’s an afterthought. Can’t always be right, but at least I’m a net winner unlike 2sweeet. Lol