Vegas puts Vikings Over Under Win Total at 6.5. Whatcha got?

[dead_poet]

That is if the pass rush can keep up with the rest of the defense. A huge weak point of the team, imo.

The pass rush was a weak point? They were tied for eighth in sacks, 14th in QB hits. I do think it suffered a bit when Barr when down. But a healthy Barr and a faster ILB (Kendricks) combined with an improving Griffen and Floyd and I think our defensive line has enough juice. Sure, Robison is getting long in the tooth but he's always been pretty consistent at generating pressure, even if he doesn't always get the sack. I'm more concerned with the run defense.

[Raptorman]

I'll take the over by 4.5 games. 11-5.

[MusicCityViking]

6.5? Really? I say over by a few games. 9-7 seems likely considering our team is consistently and rapidly improving, but a tough schedule will keep us from contending for the division title, and may even be enough to keep us out of a wild card spot.

[J. Kapp 11]

I'm going to say over, and with ease. This was a 7-win team last year without Adrian Peterson, with a rookie quarterback, with a new coaching staff, with a decimated offensive line, and with a defense that did not include players like Waynes, Newman or Kendricks. Yes, the division is tough, but our defensive backfield has more depth than ever to contend with the likes of Rodgers and Stafford, and even if Teddy doesn't improve (extremely unlikely) our offense automatically improves simply by adding Number 28.

Overall, the Vikings are more talented, deeper, and more experienced in the Zimmer/Turner system than last year. There is absolutely no reason for this team to finish worse. But hey, let's face it ... Vegas is never bullish on the Vikings. Never. Neither is the media, although Bucky Brooks has called the Vikings "a team on the rise." Bucky is right. Vegas is wrong.

[Demi]

Playing the west this year compared to the east/south last year could be a little tougher. And a few question marks, but does seem surprising to put the line lower than the 7 wins the team had last year. Wonder if it will move as the season gets closer.

[Raptorman]

Let me tell you why I took the over and say 11 games. Historically, in game Adrian Peterson has played and rushed for at least 20 times, the Vikings have scored and average of 6 point per game more than games in which Peterson does not play or rushes for less than 20 times a game. So, in the long run, Peterson being back should net the Vikings an increase in Offensive points per game, and that should offset some of those games they lost by one score or less last year.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Let me tell you why I took the over and say 11 games. Historically, in game Adrian Peterson has played and rushed for at least 20 times, the Vikings have scored and average of 6 point per game more than games in which Peterson does not play or rushes for less than 20 times a game. So, in the long run, Peterson being back should net the Vikings an increase in Offensive points per game, and that should offset some of those games they lost by one score or less last year.

I like your take on things

[Hunter Morrow]

I'm going to say over, and with ease. This was a 7-win team last year without Adrian Peterson, with a rookie quarterback, with a new coaching staff, with a decimated offensive line, and with a defense that did not include players like Waynes, Newman or Kendricks. Yes, the division is tough, but our defensive backfield has more depth than ever to contend with the likes of Rodgers and Stafford, and even if Teddy doesn't improve (extremely unlikely) our offense automatically improves simply by adding Number 28.

Overall, the Vikings are more talented, deeper, and more experienced in the Zimmer/Turner system than last year. There is absolutely no reason for this team to finish worse. But hey, let's face it ... Vegas is never bullish on the Vikings. Never. Neither is the media, although Bucky Brooks has called the Vikings "a team on the rise." Bucky is right. Vegas is wrong.

Your last paragraph is why the line could be low. The media gives poor coverage to this team and consistently writes it off, so the general public is inclined to take the under on this team. You have to make the over option juicy to people who know something about this team to balance out the betting action.

I know the schedule is rough, but we had some bad breaks in games last year. If a teeny bit of bad breaks went our way last year, we could have easily been 9-7, right?

[Jordysghost]

I'm also sure a lot of non-Viking fans that are betting have no clue who we even drafted or brought in over the last few years. They just look at how our record has been lately and place the bet

This. Always something I found frustrating about rival fans.

[jackal]

This. Always something I found frustrating about rival fans.

Bottom line is most people really, are not hard core fans. Most years I can name almost
every starter and most backs ups on our team, and some others. Even some announcers
know very little about most teams, they spend eighty seconds, talking about headline news
stories.

[kirbyphuckett]

we will win 10...4 of those games will come against detroit and chicago and one and against GB.

[Demi]

I'm assuming a lot of bets have been placed considering the line and how sure people are?.....

[kurtkeoki]

Where are you guys finding the over/under future bets? I looked at Vegasinsider and only found odds for winning the division, conference, and Super Bowl. When I did various google searches, the number I found was 6.5, but that was from February.

That being said, I think this is a great bet at 6.5, not as great at 7. While we did get much better on paper, keep in mind that we could have easily lost a few of those games last year, which would mean that it could be tough to improve from 7-9 if our true record last year should have been, say, 5-11. Sort of like a few years ago when we were 10-6, improved the roster, but had a worse record the next year, because 10-6 wasn't really a reflection of how good the team was. If we weren't as good as our 7-9 record last year, we could finish with that record or worse this year, even with an upgraded roster. Another thing to keep in mind is that most teams feel they improved. The NFL is like that. Every team is getting back injured guys, getting new draft picks, picking up guys in FA that fit their system, cutting dead weight, etc. While the Vikings probably improved more than the average NFL team, it's not like everyone else was standing still. For every team that has ever been excited about getting Norv Turner as OC, there was another team saying 'good riddance.'

Just look at our division. The Lions lost Suh but had a good draft and acquired a guy that for one year at least is probably 85% of Suh's level. The Packers didn't lose anyone, and had another great draft. The Bears are probably still a transitioning team, but they are likely at least as good as last year. Look on every team's message board, and you'll probably see the majority of people saying they would take the over for their team. Familiarity breeds optimism in sports during the offseason.

[kurtkeoki]

I'm assuming a lot of bets have been placed considering the line and how sure people are?.....

I live in Detroit and am regularly at the casino, and normally have no trouble finding no-juice action against the other poker players. The problem with this bet is that it's so long term, and gamblers want instant gratification. So, to answer your question, I have been trying to place this bet but so far have no takers. I wouldn't blame people in Vegas for passing on the bet because of the juice. I would probably bet a pretty decent amount if I could find a no-juice bet, and a website that shows the up to date O/U total at 6.5. I'm pretty sure it's moved to 7 in most places, but I can't find reliable data.

[Mothman]

Where are you guys finding the over/under future bets? I looked at Vegasinsider and only found odds for winning the division, conference, and Super Bowl. When I did various google searches, the number I found was 6.5, but that was from February.

This is where I saw the line at 7 wins: http://247sports.com/Bolt/Latest-win-to ... --37115778

It came up after a Google search for 'over under on vikings wins in 2015".

That being said, I think this is a great bet at 6.5, not as great at 7. While we did get much better on paper, keep in mind that we could have easily lost a few of those games last year, which would mean that it could be tough to improve from 7-9 if our true record last year should have been, say, 5-11. Sort of like a few years ago when we were 10-6, improved the roster, but had a worse record the next year, because 10-6 wasn't really a reflection of how good the team was. If we weren't as good as our 7-9 record last year, we could finish with that record or worse this year, even with an upgraded roster. Another thing to keep in mind is that most teams feel they improved. The NFL is like that. Every team is getting back injured guys, getting new draft picks, picking up guys in FA that fit their system, cutting dead weight, etc. While the Vikings probably improved more than the average NFL team, it's not like everyone else was standing still. For every team that has ever been excited about getting Norv Turner as OC, there was another team saying 'good riddance.'

at that last line. That's a good, honest perspective.

Just look at our division. The Lions lost Suh but had a good draft and acquired a guy that for one year at least is probably 85% of Suh's level. The Packers didn't lose anyone, and had another great draft. The Bears are probably still a transitioning team, but they are likely at least as good as last year. Look on every team's message board, and you'll probably see the majority of people saying they would take the over for their team. Familiarity breeds optimism in sports during the offseason.

It does indeed. Good post!