Packers Own Third-Best Odds of Winning 2016 Super Bowl

The Green Bay Packers have been installed with the third-lowest odds of winning the 2016 Super Bowl, according to online oddsmaker Bovada.lv on Monday.

At 8-1 odds, the Packers rank behind only the two teams that played in this year's Super Bowl.

Even though they lost on Sunday, the Seahawks are the odds-on favorite to win Super Bowl 50 (5-1). The New England Patriots come in second (7-1).

After the Packers, the next closest team is the Denver Broncos (10-1).

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (7)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
egbertsouse's picture

February 02, 2015 at 02:22 pm

Odds were 20-1 until they fired Slocum.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 02, 2015 at 02:28 pm

I hate early odds predictions. Anyone anywhere could post the same dam thing. The whole football world was writing off NE after week 4 and some even wanted Brady benched, lmfao.

0 points
0
0
aj's picture

February 02, 2015 at 03:05 pm

I think they'll be the favorites next season. With the continued development of our guys and adding one more speedy linebacker to that defense, we'll see some special things next season. Rodgers will get his 3rd mvp and 2nd superbowl mvp next season.

0 points
0
0
Allan Murphy's picture

February 02, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Odds don't mean nothing till play off's .................

0 points
0
0
Crackerpacker's picture

February 03, 2015 at 12:57 am

If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me but aren't Seattle in the same position this year that San Francisco were in last year. They need to give the QB a big fat new contract, And let some starters go to pay for it. Given how the 49ers form fell away, I don't know how Seattle can be favourites.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

February 03, 2015 at 02:28 am

Yes and No. Seattle has more cap room than GB by about $5 million, but Wilson's extension is likely to eat a good bit of it. But the 1st year is unlikely to have a monstrous cap number. Example: Rodger's 2013 cap was $12 million due to the large signing bonus he got, and then jumped $5.5 million the next season. Wilson's contract will be interesting. Lynch wants an extension but he is under contract for next year. He takes home only $7 million and has a cap of $8.5. He already is the 5th highest paid RB with an average of $7.5. Unless he wants Adrian Peterson money, if he gets a raise it really shouldn't be something astronomical. And if he gets a multi-year extension as has been reported, it would not be surprising if his cap number in the 1st year is less than the $8.5 his current contract calls for.

Their UFAs have only one starter, Byron Maxwell, who is in line for a big raise. Kevin Williams, the old DT, is also a UFA. He won't get huge money. The rest of their UFAs are back-ups and depth guys. WRs Kearse and Lockette are both RFAs, but neither is a world beater. They have Baldwin and Norwood for the next 2 seasons. LBs Wagner and Irvin, along with Okung (who already has a high cap, so it won't go up too much) and TE Zach Miller are under contract for this season only. The LBs will get some money. All of them might be looking for extensions. Seattle's cap situation does not look that bad to me for the upcoming season. It is a little dicier for the years after that.

0 points
0
0
Crackerpacker's picture

February 03, 2015 at 03:59 am

Thanks for info, I'm not an expert on salary cap I just thought Wilson would be wanting nearly 20 million a big increase on less than 700 thousand. I know this is a simplistic view but it's hard to get your head round this having minimal impact.

0 points
0
0