Colin Cowherd had an interesting theory on Pats/Packers and it really is starting to make sense

Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:

This is not a pick. I probably won't even bet on the game. I am relaying information for conversation.
I listen to Colin Cowherd and when it comes to sports betting talk on the radio, he is the best in the business. He cares about the spread and knows what lines mean.He has a GAMBLING show on ESPN for god's sake that they call a 'football' show.
Anyhow, he made a comment about the Pats Pack and it got me thinking about an example from the NBA:
He believes the Packers will win and cover for a singular reason.
It's not because the Pats are worse or can't win this game on the road and/or can't cover.
It's because he doesn't believe Belichick wants to 'show his hand' in this game.
The favorites to reach the Super Bowl right now? Packers/Pats. We all know this. 
If the Pats beat the Packers and extend their winning streak to 8 games, what's left?
They've beat the best in the league and they continue to win everything (and remember what winning everything did to them when they went to the SB on an 18 game win streak).
Therefore, Belichick will take it down a notch. He actually might be hoping to see the Packers best, lose, and keep his team hungry. We can never know this but masterminds like Bill and Pop can do things like this.
 
Perfect example last year from the NBA on this one.
The Spurs went on a 19 game win streak near the end of the season. No one could beat them.
Then they played the Thunder at the Thunder. The Thunder were basically the co-favorites to win the championship (with the Heat at the time) and the Spurs odds were dropping like an anvil.
The line for that game? Opened at -4.5 @ OKC. Many thought that line was high for the Spurs and took the points.
This line here? Opened at -3.5 (in many places) @ GB. Many thought the line was high and jumped on the Pats
Both are away games and both pretty surprising lines that make it VERY hard NOT to take the team on the winning streak.
Popovich, coach of the Spurs, is a genius. His team lost 106-94. Not a terrible blowout, and not an 20 game winning streak extending win.
The Thunder celebrated and laid it all out that day while the Spurs actually sounded like they were a bit relieved the streak was over and they could 'reset' and focus on the playoffs.
Who did the Spurs meat in the playoffs? The Thunder.
Who won the series? The Spurs.
Who won the championship? The Spurs.
Many believe Pop made a decision to take it down a notch in that OKC game and go into the playoffs hungry without beating a team they will likely see again. Instead, the Thunder broke the mighty Spurs winning streak and they met in the Western Conference Finals with all the confidence in the world. Injuries aside, they ended up losing the series.
The same could apply to this Pats game.
Take it down a notch, end the winning streak, and go into the playoffs hungry.
Don't THROW the game but don't go full bore either.
Let the Packers believe they are on top of the world, have them show their hand and if you meet them in the Super Bowl, they have 'shown their hand'.
Therefore, there is justification to lay a big number like -3.5 with the Packers with the Packers at home and the Pats attempting a reset to stay hungry (now an even bigger bargain at 3 and even 2.5 so it's even more of a bargain).
 
What is your opinion?