Weekly line thread: Eagles -7 vs. Vikings

[Hawkeye]

The line opened at -7.5 before sliding to -7.  The total is 48 to 48.5.

The Vikings are 3-7 ATS over their last 10 games, while the Eagles are a ho-hum 5-5. The Eagles rust was showing last week and the loss of Dean for at least a few weeks adds even more uncertainty to a shaky LB position. And the D will have someone else wearing the green dot.  Still, if you believe the offense will get on track, laying 7 seems about right.

Line: Eagles -7
Total: 48/48.5
Moneyline: Eagles -300/Vikings +240

[Mike030270]

Foles!

[LacesOut]

Taking the Vikes and dem points!

Birds - 27

Vikes - 24

[weko]

A lot of points to give with the Vikings having a pro bowl TE and WR.  They will each have 8-10 catches in the porous middle of our D

[Traveler Vic]

5 minutes ago, LacesOut said:

Taking the Vikes and dem points!

Birds - 27

Vikes - 24

Can't be 27. I see at least 3 field goals in the game. My prediction is Eagles score 30. Vikes..? I do not know..but I would take the Eagles covering the spread.

[Portyansky]

Wow 7 points after that performance and now we're gonna be without Bradberry? 

[we_gotta_believe]

Dean and Bradberry out, Blankenship, Gainwell, and Cox were DNP today. Middle of the defense is dinged up and it was a vulnerability even when healthy.

[NJWolverEagle11]

1 hour ago, Portyansky said:

Wow 7 points after that performance and now we're gonna be without Bradberry? 

Concussion protocol? 

[Godfather]

Are the Vikings the real test? 

[opa-opa]

Vikes lost to Baker Mayfield...at home.

[Uscg-green]

rooting for eagles but if I was betting with that line? Vikings. Eagles to win but they wont cover.

[NCTANK]

this line makes no sense at all…

[UK_EaglesFan89]

7 hours ago, NCTANK said:

this line makes no sense at all…

Why don’t you think it makes sense?

[Cochis_Calhoun]

It's a line that will scare off the bedwetters who are all Chicken Little over the opening day.

I'd have taken -7.5 all day.

[Portyansky]

15 hours ago, NJWolverEagle11 said:

Concussion protocol? 

Am I mistaken? I thought he had a concussion?

[we_gotta_believe]

6 hours ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

Why don’t you think it makes sense?

Injuries and lack of cohesion on defense being partially exposed by a far worse offense in NE. Sure we won by 5 pts, and MIN lost to Tampa at home, but the scorelines can sometimes be misleading.

In our case at least, we won thanks to an Elliot FG that bounced off the upright and went in. An inch farther, and it hits the upright but bounces out, meaning we only woud've had a 2pt lead heading into the Pats final drive, when they easily got in FG range. The 5 pt lead forced them to go for the TD obviously, where they ultimately fell short, but if they only needed a FG instead, they could've won the game all else remaining the same (yes, I know this sort of hypothetical can be a stretch because decision making would've likely been affected, but you get the idea.)

 

[NJWolverEagle11]

37 minutes ago, Portyansky said:

Am I mistaken? I thought he had a concussion?

I was asking if that was indeed the case.

That tackle late 4th quarter when he got the friendly fire and it looked like his mouth was bleeding I think did it

[UK_EaglesFan89]

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Injuries and lack of cohesion on defense being partially exposed by a far worse offense in NE. Sure we won by 5 pts, and MIN lost to Tampa at home, but the scorelines can sometimes be misleading.

In our case at least, we won thanks to an Elliot FG that bounced off the upright and went in. An inch farther, and it hits the upright but bounces out, meaning we only woud've had a 2pt lead heading into the Pats final drive, when they easily got in FG range. The 5 pt lead forced them to go for the TD obviously, where they ultimately fell short, but if they only needed a FG instead, they could've won the game all else remaining the same (yes, I know this sort of hypothetical can be a stretch because decision making would've likely been affected, but you get the idea.)

 

I get the idea but we won and Minnesota didn’t. We were on the road, they were at home. We played ugly and won, they played ugly and lost. We played ugly and stood up and won the game which is what really matters. It was week one. A week where KC lose their home opener. I don’t think we need to should be scared by Kirk Coupons and the Vikings.

[Aerolithe_Lion]

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Injuries and lack of cohesion on defense being partially exposed by a far worse offense in NE. Sure we won by 5 pts, and MIN lost to Tampa at home, but the scorelines can sometimes be misleading.

In our case at least, we won thanks to an Elliot FG that bounced off the upright and went in. An inch farther, and it hits the upright but bounces out, meaning we only woud've had a 2pt lead heading into the Pats final drive, when they easily got in FG range. The 5 pt lead forced them to go for the TD obviously, where they ultimately fell short, but if they only needed a FG instead, they could've won the game all else remaining the same (yes, I know this sort of hypothetical can be a stretch because decision making would've likely been affected, but you get the idea.)

 

It was raining, it was Belichick, and no preseason rust

vs

The Vikings will be without 2 starting Olineman, their Dline is significantly worse than last year, they just lost to the Bucs, and the game is in Philly.

[we_gotta_believe]

26 minutes ago, UK_EaglesFan89 said:

I get the idea but we won and Minnesota didn’t. We were on the road, they were at home. We played ugly and won, they played ugly and lost. We played ugly and stood up and won the game which is what really matters. It was week one. A week where KC lose their home opener. I don’t think we need to should be scared by Kirk Coupons and the Vikings.

No I hear ya. It's the NFL, any given sunday and all that, but was just trying to explain why a 7pt line against a team that won 13 games last year might seem high. I personally was expecting an opener like -6 or maybe even -5.5 since lines are usually a bit soft in the first few weeks of the season.

[we_gotta_believe]

1 minute ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

It was raining, it was Belichick, and no preseason rust

vs

The Vikings will be without 2 starting Olineman, their Dline is significantly worse than last year, they just lost to the Bucs, and the game is in Philly.

see above

[UK_EaglesFan89]

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No I hear ya. It's the NFL, any given sunday and all that, but was just trying to explain why a 7pt line against a team that won 13 games last year might seem high. I personally was expecting an opener like -6 or maybe even -5.5 since lines are usually a bit soft in the first few weeks of the season.

I get that but then we were a legit SB contender last year and let’s be honest Minnesota were frauds. We battered them in week 2 last year and it’s a short week where they are on the road.

I get the line and understand it. But I wouldn’t back us on that line.

[dawkins4prez]

3 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

It was raining, it was Belichick, and no preseason rust

vs

The Vikings will be without 2 starting Olineman, their Dline is significantly worse than last year, they just lost to the Bucs, and the game is in Philly.

This.  You think the Eagles have problems...

 

I think the line is spot on, just like last week's was, so I wouldn't touch it.  If anything the Over might be tempting.

[Portyansky]

SMFH

[Hawkeye]

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No I hear ya. It's the NFL, any given sunday and all that, but was just trying to explain why a 7pt line against a team that won 13 games last year might seem high. I personally was expecting an opener like -6 or maybe even -5.5 since lines are usually a bit soft in the first few weeks of the season.

A cynic would say it's about a half point shade to draw money on the Vikings. 

The Eagles are almost always overbet, particularly at home.