Give them credit...Carson & crew will show up and play...their defense is capable...the RUNNING game can surprise...Larry Johnson, Cedric Benson, Scott can do some damage, they have good receivers..as well...
I will take my chances for them NOT to get smoked...
0
Bengals...were shit...now you expect Superbowl?
Give them credit...Carson & crew will show up and play...their defense is capable...the RUNNING game can surprise...Larry Johnson, Cedric Benson, Scott can do some damage, they have good receivers..as well...
I will take my chances for them NOT to get smoked...
The Vikings schedule is easier than the Bengals. Both play in a joke of a division but look at the out of division games. Minnesota's toughest game to date was at Arizona and got trucked. Just saying both teams with good records but I feel Minnesota is less battle tested than Cincinnati. Ill take the points for this one. GL all
Bengals +6.5
0
The Vikings schedule is easier than the Bengals. Both play in a joke of a division but look at the out of division games. Minnesota's toughest game to date was at Arizona and got trucked. Just saying both teams with good records but I feel Minnesota is less battle tested than Cincinnati. Ill take the points for this one. GL all
If you compare schedules, their opponents each have a combined 60 points, but the differential tells the story.
I disagree with this. The Bengals have been content to run the shit out of the ball and the clock when they've gotten a lead lately while the Vikings have continued to throw and run up the score. Very misleading stats.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey:
Bengals vs Vikings:
Bengals point differential: 67
Vikings point differential: 126
If you compare schedules, their opponents each have a combined 60 points, but the differential tells the story.
I disagree with this. The Bengals have been content to run the shit out of the ball and the clock when they've gotten a lead lately while the Vikings have continued to throw and run up the score. Very misleading stats.
If you compare schedules, their opponents each have a combined 60 points, but the differential tells the story.
Point differential is so misleading imo. I don't put much faith into it until the end of the season. Time will tell. A win is a win regardless of the margin of victory. If that was the case, then the '07 Pats might as well be named the greatest team ever. Their point differential was out of this world.
A much healthier MIN team should do a whole lot better than a CIN team that lost C. Benson for a good stretch of time as well. Imo CIN has been much more battle tested than MIN.
I might as well throw in that MIN lost to PITT, the very same team that lost to CIN twice for arguement sake. You know the old Team A beats Team B who in return beats Team C. Thus Team A should beat Team C. That line of reasoning don't hold water.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey:
Bengals vs Vikings:
Bengals point differential: 67
Vikings point differential: 126
If you compare schedules, their opponents each have a combined 60 points, but the differential tells the story.
Point differential is so misleading imo. I don't put much faith into it until the end of the season. Time will tell. A win is a win regardless of the margin of victory. If that was the case, then the '07 Pats might as well be named the greatest team ever. Their point differential was out of this world.
A much healthier MIN team should do a whole lot better than a CIN team that lost C. Benson for a good stretch of time as well. Imo CIN has been much more battle tested than MIN.
I might as well throw in that MIN lost to PITT, the very same team that lost to CIN twice for arguement sake. You know the old Team A beats Team B who in return beats Team C. Thus Team A should beat Team C. That line of reasoning don't hold water.
As a season ticket holder/die hard Ravens fan...we suck.
The Steelers are miserable.
The Browns are even worse.
Those three teams accounted for 6 of their 9 wins.
The other 3?
All against NFC North teams not named the Minnesota Vikings.
Will fade this team HARD in the playoffs
that is an easy schedule, but one thing...
didnt the Steelers beat the Vikes by 10? i know there were some late TO's but that game, and the way they were exposed against Zona last Sunday has worried me a bit. Then, you have the Bengals, who should be 10-2, barring the miracle Denver play, but have only played one team with a winning record.(my pack)
I think this line is perfect @ 7
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stuckey:
As a season ticket holder/die hard Ravens fan...we suck.
The Steelers are miserable.
The Browns are even worse.
Those three teams accounted for 6 of their 9 wins.
The other 3?
All against NFC North teams not named the Minnesota Vikings.
Will fade this team HARD in the playoffs
that is an easy schedule, but one thing...
didnt the Steelers beat the Vikes by 10? i know there were some late TO's but that game, and the way they were exposed against Zona last Sunday has worried me a bit. Then, you have the Bengals, who should be 10-2, barring the miracle Denver play, but have only played one team with a winning record.(my pack)
Point differential is so misleading imo. I don't put much faith into it until the end of the season. Time will tell. A win is a win regardless of the margin of victory. If that was the case, then the '07 Pats might as well be named the greatest team ever. Their point differential was out of this world.
A much healthier MIN team should do a whole lot better than a CIN team that lost C. Benson for a good stretch of time as well. Imo CIN has been much more battle tested than MIN.
I might as well throw in that MIN lost to PITT, the very same team that lost to CIN twice for arguement sake. You know the old Team A beats Team B who in return beats Team C. Thus Team A should beat Team C. That line of reasoning don't hold water.
if a team was beating every team 48-0 every game and a team who went 9-7, sqweaked into the playoffs in the 2nd Wild Card spot, id probably take the first team
0
Quote Originally Posted by kickinA:
Point differential is so misleading imo. I don't put much faith into it until the end of the season. Time will tell. A win is a win regardless of the margin of victory. If that was the case, then the '07 Pats might as well be named the greatest team ever. Their point differential was out of this world.
A much healthier MIN team should do a whole lot better than a CIN team that lost C. Benson for a good stretch of time as well. Imo CIN has been much more battle tested than MIN.
I might as well throw in that MIN lost to PITT, the very same team that lost to CIN twice for arguement sake. You know the old Team A beats Team B who in return beats Team C. Thus Team A should beat Team C. That line of reasoning don't hold water.
if a team was beating every team 48-0 every game and a team who went 9-7, sqweaked into the playoffs in the 2nd Wild Card spot, id probably take the first team
if a team was beating every team 48-0 every game and a team who went 9-7, sqweaked into the playoffs in the 2nd Wild Card spot, id probably take the first team
Well if we're basing it on such extremes then hell yeah!!
SU anyway and take my chances there. (And yes I realize big dogs have come through in those situations, esp. ATS).
However CIN isn't squeeking into the 2nd Wild Card spot. Barring a major DAL-like DEC winless streak, they've pretty much locked up the AFC North. They've already got the tie breaker against BAL in case of a tie.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bruce_Willis:
if a team was beating every team 48-0 every game and a team who went 9-7, sqweaked into the playoffs in the 2nd Wild Card spot, id probably take the first team
Well if we're basing it on such extremes then hell yeah!!
SU anyway and take my chances there. (And yes I realize big dogs have come through in those situations, esp. ATS).
However CIN isn't squeeking into the 2nd Wild Card spot. Barring a major DAL-like DEC winless streak, they've pretty much locked up the AFC North. They've already got the tie breaker against BAL in case of a tie.
I agree with line being solid at 7. I understand that. But I do not see Cincy as a 9-7 squeak into the playoffs kinda team. i see them as a team with decent run/pass mix and a fairly solid D, which is why I like the points. Can I see Minny blowing them out at home coming off an ass pounding themselves. yes. yes I can.
Still, I respect the value, and will wait and see if Cincy can be one of those "good" teams, and at least keep it close.
BW
0
I agree with line being solid at 7. I understand that. But I do not see Cincy as a 9-7 squeak into the playoffs kinda team. i see them as a team with decent run/pass mix and a fairly solid D, which is why I like the points. Can I see Minny blowing them out at home coming off an ass pounding themselves. yes. yes I can.
Still, I respect the value, and will wait and see if Cincy can be one of those "good" teams, and at least keep it close.
It will be interesting to see how the MIN defense adjust to playing without their signal caller MLB EJ Henderson. He is a very critical player in their defensive schemes.
I like CIN getting the points as well. Few weeks back, most people jumped on NE after the INDY game debaucle expecting NE to light up the JETS and what do you know, NYJ covered ATS. Same last week against MIA too, NE lost SU, nvm ATS. Why am I bringing this up? Answer is more pressure is on MIN than CIN in this game.
GL however way you choose.
0
It will be interesting to see how the MIN defense adjust to playing without their signal caller MLB EJ Henderson. He is a very critical player in their defensive schemes.
I like CIN getting the points as well. Few weeks back, most people jumped on NE after the INDY game debaucle expecting NE to light up the JETS and what do you know, NYJ covered ATS. Same last week against MIA too, NE lost SU, nvm ATS. Why am I bringing this up? Answer is more pressure is on MIN than CIN in this game.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
