Jump to content

Weekly line thread: Eagles -7 vs. Vikings


Hawkeye
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...