Vegas wants Hawks fans to make money :)

[warden]

11 wins seems about right. There is just so much to factor into it when setting lines, like the possibility of season ending injuries to key players. Taking the over doesn't seem like a good bet if Russell was to go down with an injury for the season. The only sure thing right now is that we will be able to compete for another Superbowl, but there is a long long long journey with so many different variables to tend with first

 

[12thManNorth]

Surprised it's not 11.5 or 12. I think we get to 12 at least next year and that'll take the division. As far as I'm concerned, our roster can and probably will be every bit as good as last year. The schedule is a concern but it was also at this time last year when we all were looking at the 5 10am games and knew the NFC West was gonna be super tough

 

[Sgt. Largent]

11 wins seems about right. There is just so much to factor into it when setting lines, like the possibility of season ending injuries to key players. Taking the over doesn't seem like a good bet if Russell was to go down with an injury for the season. The only sure thing right now is that we will be able to compete for another Superbowl, but there is a long long long journey with so many different variables to tend with first

I don't think 11 wins even gets us a wildcard, not in this division, and not in the NFC.

 

[Cartire]

11 wins seems about right. There is just so much to factor into it when setting lines, like the possibility of season ending injuries to key players. Taking the over doesn't seem like a good bet if Russell was to go down with an injury for the season. The only sure thing right now is that we will be able to compete for another Superbowl, but there is a long long long journey with so many different variables to tend with first

I don't think 11 wins even gets us a wildcard, not in this division, and not in the NFC.

Wait, so your saying that the two wildcard teams will have at least 12 wins? And not in this division?

I'm confused.

11 wins will get a wild card at least. Even if both spots come outta the NFC west.

 

[MidwestHawker]

11 wins on the O/U isn't an inefficient line at all, to my eyes. If they exceed 11 wins then they'll do it by including at least a couple of wins that could have easily gone the other way. It's a tough division to try to pile up big win numbers in.

I wouldn't really touch this line; there are a number of other O/U leaguewide that look more appealing.

 

[Sports Hernia]

11 wins on the O/U isn't an inefficient line at all, to my eyes. If they exceed 11 wins then they'll do it by including at least a couple of wins that could have easily gone the other way. It's a tough division to try to pile up big win numbers in.

I wouldn't really touch this line; there are a number of other O/U leaguewide that look more appealing.

Great teams win close games that could go either way. Seattle is a great team, you are basing your statement off of dumb luck and chance. Do you really think this team is going to be 2 games worse them last year? Call me a homer, but I don't think that will be the case.

I think Vegas is NAILS when it comes to setting point spreads in individual games, they are uncanny how accurate they are on those (outside of games in C-link and XLVIII) but they can be taken on future bets however (see O/U for wins and Super Bowl odds etc).

 

[olyfan63]

11 wins very well could take this division, though likely on a tiebreaker. If all teams split home and away, and everyone was 3-3 in the division, one of the teams would have to go 9-1 outside the division to reach 12-4. Both Seattle and SF could do this. Unlikely for Rams, unlikely for Cards, as both will find ways to lose at least 2 games to non-division opponents.

But, playing NFC West opponents, SF will lose at least a couple division games on the road, Seattle will probably lose at least one division game on the road.

So to me, betting on >11 wins, and losing to Vegas if Seattle gets exactly 11, would be a pure poison bet. Everyone will be gunning for the champs. 11 wins would be a good accomplishment for the defending champs, given the obstacles.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

They have line betting in Oregon too. I have been to stateline a few times. And now 20 miles is nothing. Vegas is out, I have other priorities that have come up.

:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

Online or at a casino? Casinos I've been to in Oregon don't have sports books.

I shall have to go back and look. Seemed like it was just a line betting place in a Gas station of sorts. I know me and a buddy did it several years back for Pro football.

Asked yesterday and that place closed a few years back. Dangit. I also asked my friends in the area and they said that it is not available. Cant win them all. But it is only about 3 hrs to Jackpot to me. (maybe a little more. it has been a while).

:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

 

[kearly]

Is there any team listed higher than Seattle's 11 wins o/u? Because 11 wins is actually a really high number for an over-under from Vegas.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Is there any team listed higher than Seattle's 11 wins o/u? Because 11 wins is actually a really high number for an over-under from Vegas.

On that listing associated with this string, it only had 2 teams at 11. Everyone else was lower. That is if I recall correctly. The 2 teams were us and the donkos. My bad there were 3 teams. oops. :shock:

The Broncos, Seahawks and 49ers are tied at the top of the board with a projected 11 wins each. All three of those teams had more wins than that during the 2013 regular season.

:thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

 

[brimsalabim]

Hawks, Broncos,49rs each with 11.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/ ... ots-eagles

 

[Sports Hernia]

Hawks, Broncos,49rs each with 11.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/nfl/ ... ots-eagles

I heard Seattle and the Donks were 11, and 10.5 for the whiners in Vegas.

 

[MidwestHawker]

11 wins on the O/U isn't an inefficient line at all, to my eyes. If they exceed 11 wins then they'll do it by including at least a couple of wins that could have easily gone the other way. It's a tough division to try to pile up big win numbers in.

I wouldn't really touch this line; there are a number of other O/U leaguewide that look more appealing.

Great teams win close games that could go either way. Seattle is a great team, you are basing your statement off of dumb luck and chance. Do you really think this team is going to be 2 games worse them last year? Call me a homer, but I don't think that will be the case.

I think Vegas is NAILS when it comes to setting point spreads in individual games, they are uncanny how accurate they are on those (outside of games in C-link and XLVIII) but they can be taken on future bets however (see O/U for wins and Super Bowl odds etc).

Finishing two games worse than last year and being two games worse than last year are different things. The old saying by Parcells that gets trotted out regularly, "you are what your record says you are," is incredibly simplistic and false. In close games, variance plays a big role, a bigger role than many fans wish to buy into. The "game of inches" thing is real. Some things are not determinated by skill, or "heart" or whatever people want to say. I'm sure that you and everyone else has seen big plays occur that they see as primarily lucky plays. Those can turn a close game from a loss into a win or vice-versa. Same for a key terrible officiating gaffe in a game.

In order to avoid piling up some losses during the course of the season, you have to dodge some land mines. I realize that it's more romantic to pretend that the more deserving team wins every single game, but that just isn't the case.

To give the short answer to your question: no, I don't see us being two games worse than last year in terms of objective team quality. But we could somewhat easily finish 2-3 games worse than last year.

 

[BlueTalon]

I'd bet the under on the digits.

 

[Sports Hernia]

11 wins on the O/U isn't an inefficient line at all, to my eyes. If they exceed 11 wins then they'll do it by including at least a couple of wins that could have easily gone the other way. It's a tough division to try to pile up big win numbers in.

I wouldn't really touch this line; there are a number of other O/U leaguewide that look more appealing.

Great teams win close games that could go either way. Seattle is a great team, you are basing your statement off of dumb luck and chance. Do you really think this team is going to be 2 games worse them last year? Call me a homer, but I don't think that will be the case.

I think Vegas is NAILS when it comes to setting point spreads in individual games, they are uncanny how accurate they are on those (outside of games in C-link and XLVIII) but they can be taken on future bets however (see O/U for wins and Super Bowl odds etc).

Finishing two games worse than last year and being two games worse than last year are different things. The old saying by Parcells that gets trotted out regularly, "you are what your record says you are," is incredibly simplistic and false. In close games, variance plays a big role, a bigger role than many fans wish to buy into. The "game of inches" thing is real. Some things are not determinated by skill, or "heart" or whatever people want to say. I'm sure that you and everyone else has seen big plays occur that they see as primarily lucky plays. Those can turn a close game from a loss into a win or vice-versa. Same for a key terrible officiating gaffe in a game.

In order to avoid piling up some losses during the course of the season, you have to dodge some land mines. I realize that it's more romantic to pretend that the more deserving team wins every single game, but that just isn't the case.

To give the short answer to your question: no, I don't see us being two games worse than last year in terms of objective team quality. But we could somewhat easily finish 2-3 games worse than last year.

Well that seems to be the popular contrarian angle I'm hearing on the sportsradio stations as well, I'm just not buying it, so we will have to agree to disagree I guess?

 

[Sports Hernia]

I'd bet the under on the digits.

I kind of agree. I think they will take a step back with, the offseason turmoil/police blotter stuff, Gore and cowboy getting ready for social security, upcoming suspension/jail time of Aldumb Smith, uncertainy of little Jimmy Harbaugh's contract, a QB that is kind of a choker........

 

[MidwestHawker]

Well that seems to be the popular contrarian angle I'm hearing on the sportsradio stations as well, I'm just not buying it, so we will have to agree to disagree I guess?

Okay. But just out of curiosity, do you think that every team that finishes 12-4 is of the same quality?

And would you say that a 12-4 team is automatically the better squad than another team that finishes 11-5?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

11 wins seems about right. There is just so much to factor into it when setting lines, like the possibility of season ending injuries to key players. Taking the over doesn't seem like a good bet if Russell was to go down with an injury for the season. The only sure thing right now is that we will be able to compete for another Superbowl, but there is a long long long journey with so many different variables to tend with first

I don't think 11 wins even gets us a wildcard, not in this division, and not in the NFC.

Wait, so your saying that the two wildcard teams will have at least 12 wins? And not in this division?

I'm confused.

11 wins will get a wild card at least. Even if both spots come outta the NFC west.

11 wins barely got the Saints into the playoffs last year as a Wildcard, it's not crazy to think with even stiffer competition in the NFC that it'll take 12 wins in 2014. EVERY good NFC team improved themselves over the off season.

It's not a good thing to be in a nasty division when the other divisions are top heavy.........that means the teams you're fighting with for Wildcard spots are padding their records within their bad conferences.