Best long-shot bet to win SB

[Dude]

Bengals @ 18 to 1
Eagles @ 20 to 1
Packers @ 22 to 1
Colts @ 30 to 1
Saints @ 30 to 1
Chiefs @ 35 to 1
Chargers @ 60 to 1
Pats, 49ers, Panthers @ 9 to 1

 

[JohnShadows]

The Chargers would def be the worst team ever to win the Super Bowl.

 

[JDM]

I don't see anyone below 9-1 having much of a shot this year.

 

[Dude]

The Chargers would def be the worst team ever to win the Super Bowl.

Yep, it would be a miracle. Today, I bet $50 each on Chiefs, Packers, Bengals, Chargers and Pats. Probably a dumb thing to do but hell the payback would be awesome.

 

[cdumler7]

Packers and colts would be the only two long shots I would even think about putting money on

 

[Dude]

I don't see anyone below 9-1 having much of a shot this year.

It's for the fun of it. I bet $200 on the Pats back in December 2001 when the odds were something like 20 to 1 and man it was sweet to collect that money after SB Sunday.

 

[Dude]

Packers and colts would be the only two long shots I would even think about putting money on

I was about to bet on the Colts too. That's a good one, considering they beat the top teams in reg season, but I think the Chiefs will be hungry for revenge tomorrow and have a more experienced coach.

 

[JohnShadows]

It's for the fun of it. I bet $200 on the Pats back in December 2001 when the odds were something like 20 to 1 and man it was sweet to collect that money after SB Sunday.

Down payment on a Beamer, lol.

 

[Dude]

Down payment on a Beamer, lol.

LOL! Well if you check my vcash balance you can see I suck at betting, but maybe I'll score again!

 

[The Derski]

GB

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Long shot, Chiefs, because of their defense.

 

[TDs3nOut]

If I were to bet on one of those teams I would bet on the Eagles. They are dangerous offensively and their defense actually looked pretty good the last two weeks of the season against Chicago and Dallas. That said, they did give up 48-points to MN the week before those games, which probably has something to do with why they are a 20 to 1long-shot.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Long shot, Chiefs, because of their defense.

Their defense has not been particularly good the last half of the season. Getting Justin Houston back might help, though.

 

[broncosmitty]

Cincy would be the only non 9-1 Id see as having a shot, right now. But that's asking a lot of Dalton.

 

[Johnnydollaz89]

Their defense has not been particularly good the last half of the season. Getting Justin Houston back might help, though.

Still a very good D. Have more faith in their D winning a game then their O. Charles can only do so much.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

why does it say long shot to win & the 9-1 teams are on there?

 

[TDs3nOut]

Still a very good D. Have more faith in their D winning a game then their O. Charles can only do so much.

I think that they have actually started spreading the ball around more offensively, though Charles is obviously their best offensive player. Still don't expect them to get by the Colts at Indy tomorrow, since Indy beat them pretty convincingly in KC only a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

The Chiefs had 5 all pros if I recall with 3 of them being on defense (Berry, Hali, Poe, and Houston might actually have something to say about being the better of the 3 All-Pros) it is bizarre to see the defense struggle mightily without even one of these four players. It's not like the CB's are epically bad either. The O and ST hasn't exactly screwed them over either lately outside of the Indy game.

 

[Dude]

why does it say long shot to win & the 9-1 teams are on there?

I put the long-shots first and then included the 9-1 teams just to round out the poll to eight choices. You are correct in saying that those teams are not really a long shot.

 

[Dude]

I put the long-shots first and then included the 9-1 teams just to round out the poll to eight choices. You are correct in saying that those teams are not really a long shot.

Edit: Basically included all playoff teams, except the two favorites which are Seahawks @ 11 to 5 and Broncos @ 3 to 1.