Originally Posted by Pattie
can anyone tell me why any reasonable analyst would make the hot pick Indy once again. Granted, without a doubt a talented team with a talented QB but (you knew there would be that but) a QB that has been given opportunity after opportunity to prove himself in the playoffs and has...failed. The way I regard Peyton is that he's great during the regular season putting up the numbers and rolling along but once the playoffs starts the the pressure ratchets up he folds like a cheap suit...especially against a tough, aggressive defense (regardless of whether it's New England, Pittsburgh etc). With that pattern how can all these "it's their year" opinions even come out of their mouths without making them think twice. Belichick showed the rest of the league how to beat Peyton and in so far as I can see Peyton hasn't shown me he's outgrown his "happy feet" syndrome.
There's probably a psychology analysis that would be pertinent, but lacking that, here are some thoughts:
- Foremost, one presumes that analysts have a sense of gaining maximum readership. There are roughly 30 times as many readers who would be pleased if the Patriots lost as there are Patriots fan readers.
- There is the shiny toy syndrome. This is probably the category the Phins fall into as a new shiny toy. And Peyton is a shiny toy that somehow, inexplicably, can't seem to lose it's shine. If the Colts go downhill this season, you might begin to see some tarnish.
- There is an inherent desire to see the pack leader dragged down and vanquished. In a real pack, you have to be careful in how you express that desire or you might get ripped apart. Unfortunately, analysts seem to be able to get away with it without any physical harm.
- There is just plain dumbness. Example is the analysts who can only see three key players who left and not possible new contributions from the draft, return from injury, and free agent signings. Example is not being football smart enough to see the strengths and depth of the Pats - or at least not being able to add up the strengths versus the couple positions that might not be so strong. Example is just not believing that the Pats are for real - even after 3 superbowls.
I'm sure there are other factors, but those might be a few.
p.s. I'm presuming that you are not referring to the odds makers. Their 'analysis' is all in balancing their books and has nothing directly to do with evaluating the real odds of teams winning.