Minnesota Vikings Picks
3rd in NFC North
(6 - 2 - 0)
Next Game
Sun, Nov 15
13:00 ET
MIN @ GB Picks
NFL Picks
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 5 out of 5
A rushing game script is suggested by the Packers being a 3.5-point favorite in this game.. The predictive model expects this game to have the 3rd-most plays run on the slate this week at 131.3 plays, based on the tendencies of each team and game dynamics.. While Pierre Strong has been responsible for 20.8% of his offense's run game usage in games he has played this year, the model projects him to be much more involved in Green Bay's rushing attack in this game at 30.9%.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 5 out of 5
The model projects the Vikings to be the 9th-most run-focused team in the league (adjusted for context) at the present time with a 41.5% run rate.. Accounting for their underlying strategic approach and game dynamics, the Minnesota Vikings are projected by the predictive model to call 66.8 plays on offense in this contest: the 3rd-most on the slate this week.. The projections expect Jordan Mason to accumulate 13.6 carries in this contest, on balance, placing him in the 78th percentile when it comes to running backs.. Out of all running backs, Jordan Mason grades out in the 87th percentile for rush attempts this year, taking on 50.0% of the workload in his team's rushing attack.. Jordan Mason has picked up 41.0 adjusted yards per game on the ground since the start of last season, one of the largest marks in football when it comes to RBs (78th percentile).
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 5 out of 5
A rushing game script is suggested by the Packers being a 3.5-point favorite in this game.. The predictive model expects this game to have the 3rd-most plays run on the slate this week at 131.3 plays, based on the tendencies of each team and game dynamics.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 5 out of 5
The Vikings may pass less this week (and hand the ball off more) as a result of being be forced to utilize backup QB Carson Wentz.. At a -3.5-point disadvantage, the Vikings are underdogs in this week's game, implying more of an emphasis on passing than their normal game plan.. Accounting for their underlying strategic approach and game dynamics, the Minnesota Vikings are projected by the predictive model to call 66.8 plays on offense in this contest: the 3rd-most on the slate this week.. The Green Bay Packers defense has been a bit of pass funnel this year, allowing opposing quarterbacks to attempt the 4th-most passes in the NFL (39.6 per game) this year.. T.J. Hockenson has totaled quite a few more adjusted receiving yards per game (48.0) this season than he did last season (27.0).
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
Given their underlying play style and matchup dynamics, the model projects the Packers to pass on 61.7% of their downs: the 6th-highest rate among all teams this week.. The predictive model expects this game to have the 3rd-most plays run on the slate this week at 131.3 plays, based on the tendencies of each team and game dynamics.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
Given their underlying play style and matchup dynamics, the model projects the Packers to pass on 61.7% of their downs: the 6th-highest rate among all teams this week.. The predictive model expects this game to have the 3rd-most plays run on the slate this week at 131.3 plays, based on the tendencies of each team and game dynamics.. The model projects Tucker Kraft to earn 5.8 targets in this game, on balance, placing him in the 88th percentile among tight ends.. Tucker Kraft has accrued many more air yards this year (33.0 per game) than he did last year (25.0 per game).. Tucker Kraft's 5.22 yards-after-the-catch (YAC) this season illustrates a remarkable progression in his effectiveness in the open field over last season's 0.0% figure.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
The Vikings may pass less this week (and hand the ball off more) as a result of being be forced to utilize backup QB Carson Wentz.. At a -3.5-point disadvantage, the Vikings are underdogs in this week's game, implying more of an emphasis on passing than their normal game plan.. Accounting for their underlying strategic approach and game dynamics, the Minnesota Vikings are projected by the predictive model to call 66.8 plays on offense in this contest: the 3rd-most on the slate this week.. The Green Bay Packers defense has been a bit of pass funnel this year, allowing opposing quarterbacks to attempt the 4th-most passes in the NFL (39.6 per game) this year.. Justin Jefferson has totaled many more adjusted receiving yards per game (71.0) this season than he did last season (52.0).
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
The Vikings may pass less this week (and hand the ball off more) as a result of being be forced to utilize backup QB Carson Wentz.. At a -3.5-point disadvantage, the Vikings are underdogs in this week's game, implying more of an emphasis on passing than their normal game plan.. Accounting for their underlying strategic approach and game dynamics, the Minnesota Vikings are projected by the predictive model to call 66.8 plays on offense in this contest: the 3rd-most on the slate this week.. The Green Bay Packers defense has been a bit of pass funnel this year, allowing opposing quarterbacks to attempt the 4th-most passes in the NFL (39.6 per game) this year.. T.J. Hockenson's pass-catching performance gotten better this year, accumulating 5.0 adjusted catches compared to a mere 3.0 last year.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
The model projects the Vikings to be the 9th-most run-focused team in the league (adjusted for context) at the present time with a 41.5% run rate.. Accounting for their underlying strategic approach and game dynamics, the Minnesota Vikings are projected by the predictive model to call 66.8 plays on offense in this contest: the 3rd-most on the slate this week.. The projections expect Jordan Mason to accumulate 13.6 carries in this contest, on balance, placing him in the 78th percentile when it comes to running backs.. Out of all running backs, Jordan Mason grades out in the 87th percentile for rush attempts this year, taking on 50.0% of the workload in his team's rushing attack.
EV Model Rating
Star rating: 4 out of 5
Given their underlying play style and matchup dynamics, the model projects the Packers to pass on 61.7% of their downs: the 6th-highest rate among all teams this week.. The predictive model expects this game to have the 3rd-most plays run on the slate this week at 131.3 plays, based on the tendencies of each team and game dynamics.. The predictive model expects Pierre Strong to be a much bigger part of his team's passing offense near the end zone in this week's contest (8.7% projected Red Zone Target Share) than he has been this year (3.7% in games he has played).. The rushing TD line reads "0" on Pierre Strong's box scores this year.. The Minnesota Vikings safeties project as the worst group of safeties in football this year in covering receivers.
Consensus Picks
More ConsensusMIN @ GB · Props
| GAME & PLAYER PROPS | PROJECTIONS | ANALYSIS | BEST ODDS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SPREAD
|
|||||||
|
TOTAL
Over
41.5 Total
44.74 OVER
PROJECTION
+3.2
DIFFERENCE
17.47%
EV
|
|||||||
|
PASSING YARDS
J. Love
(QB)
o260.5 Passing Yards
262.01 OVER
PROJECTION
+1.5
DIFFERENCE
13.85%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RUSHING YARDS
P. Strong Jr.
(RB)
o10.5 Rushing Yards
28.29 OVER
PROJECTION
+17.8
DIFFERENCE
26.54%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RUSHING YARDS
J. Mason
(RB)
o43.5 Rushing Yards
54.98 OVER
PROJECTION
+11.5
DIFFERENCE
25.72%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RUSHING YARDS
J. Love
(QB)
o3.5 Rushing Yards
5.54 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.0
DIFFERENCE
24.43%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEIVING YARDS
T. Hockenson
(TE)
o37.5 Receiving Yards
46.51 OVER
PROJECTION
+9.0
DIFFERENCE
25.08%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEIVING YARDS
M. Golden
(WR)
o67.5 Receiving Yards
74.30 OVER
PROJECTION
+6.8
DIFFERENCE
22.45%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEIVING YARDS
T. Kraft
(TE)
o37.5 Receiving Yards
41.54 OVER
PROJECTION
+4.0
DIFFERENCE
21.51%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEIVING YARDS
J. Jefferson
(WR)
o78.5 Receiving Yards
81.26 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.8
DIFFERENCE
19.67%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEPTIONS MADE
T. Hockenson
(TE)
o4.5 Receptions Made
5.36 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.9
DIFFERENCE
18.18%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEPTIONS MADE
M. Golden
(WR)
o5.5 Receptions Made
5.80 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.3
DIFFERENCE
8.22%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEPTIONS MADE
T. Kraft
(TE)
u4.5 Receptions Made
4.11 UNDER
PROJECTION
-0.4
DIFFERENCE
6.67%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RECEPTIONS MADE
J. Jefferson
(WR)
u6.5 Receptions Made
6.44 UNDER
PROJECTION
-0.1
DIFFERENCE
-8.56%
EV
|
|||||||
|
RUSHING ATTEMPTS
J. Mason
(RB)
o10.5 Rushing Attempts
12.47 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.0
DIFFERENCE
16.76%
EV
|
|||||||
|
PASSING ATTEMPTS
J. Love
(QB)
o34.5 Passing Attempts
36.87 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.4
DIFFERENCE
14.09%
EV
|
|||||||
|
PASSING COMPLETIONS
J. Love
(QB)
o22.5 Passing Completions
22.75 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.3
DIFFERENCE
-1.45%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
P. Strong Jr.
(RB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.3 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
20.95%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Jefferson
(WR)
Anytime Touchdown
0.48 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
18.79%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
M. Golden
(WR)
Anytime Touchdown
0.51 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
18.32%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
T. Hockenson
(TE)
Anytime Touchdown
0.32 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
13.26%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
T. Kraft
(TE)
Anytime Touchdown
0.3 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-6.29%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Mason
(RB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.28 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-8.91%
EV
|
|||||||
|
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Love
(QB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.08 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-16.07%
EV
|
|||||||
|
INTERCEPTIONS THROWN
J. Love
(QB)
o0.5 Interceptions Thrown
0.92 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.4
DIFFERENCE
7.29%
EV
|
|||||||
- Proj. Diff: Low to High
- Proj. Diff: High to Low
- Proj. Rating: Low to High
- Proj. Rating: High to Low
- +EV: Low to High
- +EV: High to Low
SPREAD
TOTAL
Over
41.5 Total
44.74 OVER
PROJECTION
+3.2
DIFFERENCE
17.47%
EV
PASSING YARDS
J. Love
(QB)
o260.5 Passing Yards
262.01 OVER
PROJECTION
+1.5
DIFFERENCE
13.85%
EV
RUSHING YARDS
P. Strong Jr.
(RB)
o10.5 Rushing Yards
28.29 OVER
PROJECTION
+17.8
DIFFERENCE
26.54%
EV
RUSHING YARDS
J. Mason
(RB)
o43.5 Rushing Yards
54.98 OVER
PROJECTION
+11.5
DIFFERENCE
25.72%
EV
RUSHING YARDS
J. Love
(QB)
o3.5 Rushing Yards
5.54 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.0
DIFFERENCE
24.43%
EV
RECEIVING YARDS
T. Hockenson
(TE)
o37.5 Receiving Yards
46.51 OVER
PROJECTION
+9.0
DIFFERENCE
25.08%
EV
RECEIVING YARDS
M. Golden
(WR)
o67.5 Receiving Yards
74.30 OVER
PROJECTION
+6.8
DIFFERENCE
22.45%
EV
RECEIVING YARDS
T. Kraft
(TE)
o37.5 Receiving Yards
41.54 OVER
PROJECTION
+4.0
DIFFERENCE
21.51%
EV
RECEIVING YARDS
J. Jefferson
(WR)
o78.5 Receiving Yards
81.26 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.8
DIFFERENCE
19.67%
EV
RECEPTIONS MADE
T. Hockenson
(TE)
o4.5 Receptions Made
5.36 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.9
DIFFERENCE
18.18%
EV
RECEPTIONS MADE
M. Golden
(WR)
o5.5 Receptions Made
5.80 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.3
DIFFERENCE
8.22%
EV
RECEPTIONS MADE
T. Kraft
(TE)
u4.5 Receptions Made
4.11 UNDER
PROJECTION
-0.4
DIFFERENCE
6.67%
EV
RECEPTIONS MADE
J. Jefferson
(WR)
u6.5 Receptions Made
6.44 UNDER
PROJECTION
-0.1
DIFFERENCE
-8.56%
EV
RUSHING ATTEMPTS
J. Mason
(RB)
o10.5 Rushing Attempts
12.47 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.0
DIFFERENCE
16.76%
EV
PASSING ATTEMPTS
J. Love
(QB)
o34.5 Passing Attempts
36.87 OVER
PROJECTION
+2.4
DIFFERENCE
14.09%
EV
PASSING COMPLETIONS
J. Love
(QB)
o22.5 Passing Completions
22.75 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.3
DIFFERENCE
-1.45%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
P. Strong Jr.
(RB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.3 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
20.95%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Jefferson
(WR)
Anytime Touchdown
0.48 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
18.79%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
M. Golden
(WR)
Anytime Touchdown
0.51 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
18.32%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
T. Hockenson
(TE)
Anytime Touchdown
0.32 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
13.26%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
T. Kraft
(TE)
Anytime Touchdown
0.3 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-6.29%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Mason
(RB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.28 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-8.91%
EV
ANYTIME TOUCHDOWN
J. Love
(QB)
Anytime Touchdown
0.08 TDs
PROJECTION
-
DIFFERENCE
-16.07%
EV
INTERCEPTIONS THROWN
J. Love
(QB)
o0.5 Interceptions Thrown
0.92 OVER
PROJECTION
+0.4
DIFFERENCE
7.29%
EV
MIN @ GB · Trends
Over
Under
Over
Under
Over
Under
MIN
GB
Over
Under
Over
Under
Over
Under
Over
Under
Over
Under
MIN
GB
MIN
GB
MIN
GB
Over
Under
Over
Under
MIN
GB
MIN
GB
MIN
GB
MIN
GB
Over
Under
Over
Under