The Vikings started free agency with somewhere between $36 and $38 million to spend on the new players (While of course also needing to save some for future contracts on players like Teddy Bridgewater and Xavier Rhodes) the Thursday before last. Now, because of that and a pretty large need at running back and the offensive line position group, a lot of Vikings fans were more than let down when the Vikings ended up snagging left/right tackles Riley Reiff and Mike Remmers as opposed to one of the more “Elite” free agents available (ie Andrew Whitworth or Kevin Zeitler). That disappointment was somewhat abated when they added (Arguably) the top free agent running back in Latavius Murray and when the reality of players that weren’t signed (Namely Matt Kalil) sunk in. However, it appears that those disappointed fans have some vindication from somewhat “Objective” sources as the Vikings odds to win the Super Bowl, at home, in 2017 has nose-dived (Nose-Diven?).
The Vikings had 16:1 odds to win the Super Bowl last month which, considering the limited respect that the Vikings have historically gotten nationally, isn’t half bad (Just ask anyone who has suffered through an episode of SportsCenter after a Vikings win). However, after free agency has mostly come and gone, their odds have more than doubled (Which in betting, is a bad thing I’ve learned) to 33:1. This is of course thanks to the great work done over at Scout.com.
I, ironically, actually find this to be quite odd (Pun!) as you’d think that after adding tackles and a replacement for Adrian Peterson that the Vikings would have a better (Another pun!) chance (A third pun!) of winning the Super Bowl than they did in February. Sure, Peterson was technically still on the roster in February but no one expected the team to pony up $18 million dollars for the 32 year old, so I guess that’s why people don’t make a lot of bets on the next seasons’ Super Bowl winner the same month that the last seasons’ team won it? Or maybe that’s why they do? I’m terrible at gambling, so I’m genuinely asking.
Either way, my point is that you can’t argue that the Vikings aren’t at least better off at the offensive line position now than they were last month (Which also means last season), at least on paper. However, Vegas odds, while scientific in their own way also are based on wishful thinking a lot in the same way that the stock market is, so perhaps people in Vegas that set the odds were thinking that the Vikings would end up making larger moves come free agency than they actually did. Or at the very least, now that the offensive line is for the most part set (The draft notwithstanding), for whatever reason the people setting the lines just don’t like what they see. I, for one, actually do. But, I’m bullish on Murray and Reiff and think that with this offensive line, and Murray picking up some slack as a top three or four blocking running back, Sam Bradford will have an even better year than he did in 2016, which means great things for the Vikings offense.
So, take this bet, is my point.