Mortal Lock!!

blackasthma · #1 08-11-2007, 11:55 AM

Don't think run D alone will get them over...consider the Colts run D last year. Either the offensive or defensive passing game must improve, imo, or this total may as well be at 16.5 wins. Also factor in the chance occurrence of a lineman dropping dead before the season begins. I personally don't like the number their getting, but....
how 'bout them buccaneers??? NFC South is always soft, and I think Kiffin's defense will rebound from last year. Throw in Garcia at QB - I think you're looking at a bargain over 7.5u30...

NajdorfDefense · #2 08-11-2007, 12:01 PM

Your post made no sense....we like the Under. I think under 16.5 wins would be a good bet...why are you comparing the #1 run D to the #32 run D? Are you saying since a team with an awful run D did well last year that the Vikes will?

blackasthma · #3 08-11-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...or this total may as well be at 16.5 wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

ooops!!! scratch that line...
I know you like the Under. My implication is that it'll take much more than strong run D for the vikes to be successful this year. The colts disregarded their run D because they didn't need it. They rarely trailed in a game, hence, opponents needed to pass the ball, not run the ball. The vikes are different. They won't win with just a strong running game and run D. They desperately need a passing attack to score some points or a formidable pass D to prevent the opposition from scoring. Either way, I don't like betting the under here. Too many people are taking it because their weaknesses have already been exposed. It's like taking a stock tip from Jim Cramer - it's already stale by the time you get it.
I apologize for the confusion...

funkytown · #4 08-13-2007, 03:29 PM

I live in the Twin Cities and I can assure you that the Vikings, sans 1998, have ALWAYS played to the level of their competition. There is no need to analyze their schedule. This team absolutely sucks. And their coach as well.

gtrunner57 · #5 08-13-2007, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I live in the Twin Cities and I can assure you that the Vikings, sans 1998, have ALWAYS played to the level of their competition. There is no need to analyze their schedule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate as to why there would be no need to analyze their schedule while trying to determine how many wins they will have? Perhaps you think an opponent has little effect on the probability of winning a game. This would be supported by your assertion that the Vikings play to the level of their competition, thereby negating any effect that the competition has on the outcome of the game. Can you provide statistics showing how the Vikings' chance to win a game is uncorrelated from how good their opponent is for the last 8 years?

funkytown · #6 08-15-2007, 12:05 PM

Some people argue for the sake of argument. Tell you what, call me and if you want to play the over, I'll book any amount you want to wager. Put up or....

blackasthma · #7 08-14-2007, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can assure you that the Vikings, sans 1998, have ALWAYS played to the level of their competition. There is no need to analyze their schedule. This team absolutely sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an argument supporting.....the UNDER @ 7 ???

If the Vikings play to the level of their competition, doesn't that seemingly imply they should win 8 games and the correct play would be OVER 7? I would've never touched the UNDER with a ten-yard pole, and I'd be even less inclined to do so if there's a shred of truth to your argument.

I believe highly subjective statements like yours are common among fans of most teams in the NFL (and the NBA as well). Similar in effect to one declaring that his hometown is "one of the fastest growing communities in the country," only because he is proud to live there. I think the truth is that most NFL teams, on average, intrinsically do play to the level of their competition. Dynasties and perennial losers aside, not much talent separates the bulk of NFL teams from each other. Contrast this to college football. I NEVER hear anyone accuse a college team of sucking because they "play to the level of their competition." Why? Because there can be drastic differences in the athletic talent base on teams, even those within the same conference (e.g., Oklahoma & Baylor in Big 12).

I actually do think there is some truth to your theory about the Vikings. Your conclusion, however, makes no sense. Last year, the Lions nearly won in New England. Did the Lions play to the level of the Patriots, or vice versa? The Lions' season point differential in 2006 was actually better than that of the Niners, yet the Lions lost 4 more games than San Fran. With few exceptions, the level of competition among all pro sports teams lies within a very tight range. In any given year, some of these teams are "lucky" to win more than their fair share while others are "unlucky" to lose more than their fair share. But that shouldn't imply that they "suck" or that they are even "good." If anything, it means they just haven't yet managed to truly distance themselves from the rest of the pack...