I'm surprised by all the backing of the Vikings and Rams next week

[trench1978]

It really surprises me how much backing I've seen of the Vikings and Rams this week. Both teams finished the regular season at 8-8. They both won in upset fasion in the wildcard weekend against mediocre teams. Both teams play in a weak conference where 8-8 is not very impressive.

Both of these teams were lucky to even make the playoffs, let alone win a playoff game. If the Vikings and Rams were tough teams, they would have won the important games that they played against poor teams.

Meanwhile, you have the class of the NFC (Eagles and Falcons) hosting divisional playoff games against the two first 8-8 teams to ever win a playoff game. Granted, the Eagles don't have Terrell Owens, but that doesn't turn them into an 8-8 team ... maybe a 12-4 team (like they were last year). They are still the class of the NFC, with the Falcons nipping at their heels.

I don't understand why people are not VERY LEERY of blowouts occurring in both of these NFC divisional playoff games. Perhaps people are concerned about the impact that the TO injury will have on the Eagles or questioning how Mike Vick's legs will be successful in the playoffs. Both these teams have been resting for a month and they are itching to get back onto the field for the playoffs.

It doesn't really matter how impressive the Vikings and Rams were this past weekend due to the mediocre caliber teams they were playing. They are still 8-8 teams in a weak conference going against the two top teams.

I think that the Rams 20-7 victory over the Eagles junior varsity team showed their inadequacey. Compare that victory to the Bengals 38-10 romp of the Eagles junior varsity team.

The only problem with betting the favorites is giving up the points. But since points rarely come into play in the playoffs, I would still likely side with the home favorites this week. This is largely due to the 8-8 records of the two visiting teams playing in a weak conference.

I have not fully committed to playing on these teams yet, but that is where I'm leaning.

Scott

 

[oldirtyku]

Mini played Phili close in phil early this this year with Owens. 11 point win with Culpeper fumbling on the 1 (might have been a TD).

They gained 410 yards, but got only one touchdown.
I
think losing owens is hugh for eagles. I want to see the health status of Moss but it seems like they have shot at the cover at +9 or +10.

I am not sold on Rams.

Take care,
Ku

 

[Boog26]

Olddirty,

Don't forget , Trotter wasn't starting in the middle for the birds and they surely are alot better than the Packers Secondary as they have 3 Pro Bowlers. Also vikes are 3-22 on the road ats last whatever. Personally i will be laying off as I am not sure about the eagles Offense , i wanna see how they use Westbrook and the starting unit hasn't played together in @ a month.

 

[Dubpoet]

Boooga

Good point. The Eagles defense is much much better now and Minn is worse!!! Home team with bye 80%

 

[trench1978]

We can talk all we want about previous matchups between the Eagles and Packers ... Eagles and Vikings ... Packers and Vikings ... etc

The bottom line is the teams' records at the end of the year because any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday in the NFL. If you discount the Eagles last two games where the Eagles entire team was basically rested and the impact players for the Eagles (their pro bowlers) didn't play at all, then you will find that the Eagles absolutely dominated the NFC competition defeating opponents by an average of over 16 points.

They did all of this WITH Owens, who is of course, out for this week. But the fact remains that they simply dominated their NFC opponents and it's naive to think that losing Owens drops the Eagles all that much in the power rankings. Perhaps Owens is "worth" one touchdown per game ... in which case the Eagles still defeated opponents by an average of 9 points (which is still dominant).

The Vikings on the other hand lost to several mediocre NFC teams:

Giants
Packers (twice by the same score 34-31, ironically enough)
Seahawks
Bears
Redskins

I am not impressed by these figures whatsoever. I partially blame the Vikings' defense which was ranked as the 2nd worst defense in the NFC. They are a team that lacks the balance that is desired by most elite NFL teams.

I view the Vikings and Rams as teams that were fortunate enough to make it as far as they did and see their accomplishments as very opportunistic, however, I find it to be a cold day in hell when one of these two 8-8 squads advances to the NFC Championship game. I also doubt their chances to cover the high point spreads.

I think a lot of people will bet on the Vikings and/or Rams hoping that they cover their respective spreads and I feel like there will be a lot of disappointed people when their 8-8 mediocre squads get blown out.

Also note that the Eagles' had 3 pro bowlers in the secondary this season with Sheldon Brown being the exception (even though he led the team in tackles and was probably the biggest playmaker in the secondary this season). It is a VAST contrast to the Packers' secondary which looked to be no more than a collegiate-level secondary when they played the Colts and Eagles earlier this year. In the first halves of those two games, the Packers gave up a combined 70 points in 60 minutes of football!!! That is the caliber team that the Vikings defeated this past week.

Well, that's just the way that I see it ... any thoughts?

Scott

 

[maverick2112]

I agree whole heartedly.........Rams and Vikes are a joke..........I think they both will lose by at least 14 this week..........the Falcons and Eggles are not the seahawks and packers............the Falcons and Eggles won like 15 out of 16 home games whereas the Seahawks and Packers struggled at home all year..........

 

[hardcorecap]

U spot that Rams offense 7 points on turf.. and it could be trouble. It is the road, but they are hot, and Falcons dont score many points. Vikings suck, but no TO scares me a little. That is alot of points. I still think Philly covers though. McNabb should pick that secondary apart with all the time he gets. the may be B level WR's but still better than the C and D level secondary of the Vikings.

 

[trench1978]

Well, I feel good now that I have a few ppl on my side. I'm probably gonna throw some cash on the Steelers, Eagles and maybe the Falcons.

I went 1-2 last weekend betting on the Chargers, Colts and Packers.

That Colts/Pats game looks to be untouchable from my vantage point. Two great teams playing in the playoffs in a game where either team could win. It was close last year, but the Colts have improved on offense and the Patriots are stronger on offense with Dillon carrying the ball. Although, if I were to bet, I'd bet on the Colts at this point because of the remarkable offensive achievements they have made this year that likely won't be rivaled for a long time...

Yeah, so back to the NFC ... the Vikings and Rams were 8-8 this year as I have iterated before. However, the Rams won their last 3 games: they beat Seattle last week, of course, and the Jets the week before in overtime, and then they beat the Philadelphia Eagles' junior varsity team. So, anyway, when I look at what the Rams have done this year, I think it is a small miracle that they even made the playoffs. This Rams team is the same team that started the season off at 4-2 and looked pretty good and seemed to be coming together. Then they lost 6 of their next 8 games to make them 6-8, only beating Seattle and San Francisco, and losing to Miami, Buffalo, Green Bay, Carolina and Arizona. And if you take a look at the scores, they were pretty much blown out in each game losing each game by at least 13 points.

Another interesting tidbit is that St. Louis is LAST in the NFC in TO differential with an abysmal -24. When the Falcons played the Rams in week 2, the Falcons registered 5 sacks and 2 turnovers against the Rams on their way to a 34-17 victory. Also note that the Rams scored 319 points this year vs. 392 points scored by their opponents. That is good for a -73 point differential from this playoff team which is the 4th worst in the NFC ahead of only San Francisco, Dallas and Chicago ... impressed yet? And this team made the playoffs? And they won a playoff game? When will their luck run out?

I still don't know what is possessing me to be so vocal against these 8-8 playoff teams, perhaps it's my disdain toward Randy Moss and Mike Martz. But I also think it's my disdain toward the lack of competitive teams in the NFC. I've never in my life seen this kind of disparity between the AFC and NFC. It's not the talent level that I find upsetting, but the quality of consistently competitive play from the playoff teams in the NFC (discarding the Eagles and Falcons). I've seen Seattle **** the bed at home on numerous occassions this year including last week. The Rams and Vikings are simply mediocre teams with poor defenses in a mediocre conference and with all that, they only finished 8-8!!!

Let's not get into how Favre single-handedly crippled his team's chances in Sunday's loss with his bizzare idea not to run for the first down by the goal line when he was clearly past the LOS while throwing 4 INTs. Or the fact that their secondary is atrocious and got lit up for a combined 70 points in the first halves against the Eagles and Colts.

Well, whatever ... I think I'm bitter by the lack of heart shown from the most talented NFC squads when the games are very winnable.

I think I've said enough for now, we'll seen what happens this week, but I think I'm going to go with the best, most consistent teams this coming week over the 8-8 teams with poor defenses. I don't think the Terrell Owens thing will matter that much when you take a long, hard look at how much better the Eagles are on defense and special teams than the Vikings. They blow away the Vikings in these categories that even with the loss of TO, they are still the far better team.

The same can be said of the Falcons, who have better defense and special teams play than the Rams and should be able to roll this week if Vick is "ON."

Scott

 

[coutts99]

the total is the play

I think the Eagles D shut down the Vikings Offense. Without T.O. the Eagles are not that effective. I really think 47.5 under is the play. It opened at 49 and I jumped on it. Eagles 27 Vikings 17. Good luck

 

[Gary_Philly]

I couldn't agree more with your points. I think the Eagles will be ready to roll this week. The line did open high, but I think it was put there for a good reason. And bettors have taken the bait hook, line, and stinker!!

Best Wishes
:toast:

 

[Piranha]

Looking at the Philly/Minn game with the opening line set so high and Philly without TO it's obvious to side with Minn. The question is why in week 2 Philly was -3 and now it opened at -9.5 and no TO?

You have to wonder if it's being set up. So easy no brainer to take Minn. That's why I'm not. Be very careful with this game. The other ones are not as clear cut.

 

[Jointpleasure]

I thought 9.5 was a little high when it came out as the Vikings looked as good as ever against GB. Yes - the Vikings may be finally peeking.

The four interceptions by Farve and a terrible GB D secondary helped matters a lot. I thought it was a more of GB being bad overall with Dante having one of his best games of his career that game. Vikings defense, when they can get to the quarterback quickly, can look pretty good at times. Surely Donovans legs are the big difference in this game. If the Vikings can't go deep, and they shouldn't be able to, their offense fails. Nine points really doesn't seem like all that many afterall. Dante doesn't quit so the backdoor may get tested. OK, I admit it, I like Philly a lot. As of today its Philly 42 Vikes 13

 

[mj23]

Piranha what you said is exactly what im talking about they want you to read into this line and then fall into the trap and bet the Eagles!!

 

[Skyweasel]

Vikings lost by 8 or more 3 times - at Philly, at Chicago, home to NY Giants.
Chicago/Giant games were basically the team losing confidence for some reason, a problem all year. All other losses were 3-4 points, 3 times on last second field goals. The team was without Moss for 6+ games midseason and this really hurt them.

In the Philly monday night game, they were statistically better but 3 times failed in the red zone and the Eagles were given a td to Owens on which the replay did not come up fast enough for a challenge which would have overturned it. The Viking team that showed last Sunday is closer to the real team than the one that stumbled around all year in various situations.

That said, there are a lot of intangibles this weekend with both teams, like is that Viking team going to show up again? What is Philly off basically 4 weeks rest and no T.O.? This is a hard game to cap but if the Vikings run to form they will not lose by 9.

 

[Skyweasel]

p.s. I think the under is the play here - tough Philly D and rusty O
p.p.s. others think so too, line is dropping, don't know how much value is there now as opposed to a few days ago
p.p.p.s. gl all