SharpClarke's Week 5 Betting Recap: Diagnosing the Chicago Bears

After five weeks of watching every snap of every game, my opinions on each team are becoming firmer. With so many tight games decided on the slimmest of margins, team record has very little to do with team quality. This causes some major splits in opinions on teams based on how you quantify performance. For example, just today, I have seen the 4-1 Giants ranked as the 7th-, 8th-, 21st-, 25th-, and 28th-best team in the NFL. That's a massive amount of variance, showing (1) the parity present in the NFL right now and (2) the potentially misleading 4-1 record the Giants have put together. If you are going to take a stand on teams, now is the time to do it. But it's important to use context to identify why a team is misvalued and exactly when that mispricing will matter. To that end, let's talk about the Chicago Bears following their loss to the Minnesota Vikings.

Useful Betting Research Tools: Game Odds Table | NFL Player Stat Explorer | NFL Team Stat Explorer

MIN 29, CHI 22

Effectiveness Ratings

MIN: 6.28
CHI: 5.75

Effective Result: MIN by 6.36

I'm getting comfortable with my handicap on the Bears. I have wagered on Bears games in each of the last three weeks and won each of those bets. I also picked Bears games in my Vegas contests in Weeks 1 and 2, nailing both of those picks. Essentially, I'm 5-0 picking Bears' games against the spread this season. It's easier to identify good and bad matchup spots for them because they have such obvious tendencies on both sides of the ball. Let's dive into them, looking specifically at the Bears-Vikings matchup.

On offense, Justin Fields cannot handle pressure in the pocket. He has shown no ability to read defensive tendencies pre-snap and adjust protections accordingly. He also appears surprised pretty much any time pressure comes at him fast. But if you give him time, he can throw accurately downfield and create plays with his legs once the congestion has cleared out. He can throw a pretty ball if you let him. The Bears' offense also relies on the run, which benefits them when teams play softer in coverage. As a result, teams that implement a blitz-heavy approach cause the Bears' offense problems. This is why I faded the Bears against the blitz-heavy Giants and bet on them against the Vikings, who like to play much less aggressively. Fields actually played a really good game here, as a 5.75 offensive rating represents an above-average offensive performance. They were actually driving to tie the game late when his receiver lost a fumble on a 15-yard catch that would have led to a first down.

Defensively, the Bears blitz at the NFL's lowest rate. But they get natural pressure with an underrated front four and back it up with a strong linebacker unit led by Roquan Smith. This defense can frustrate quarterbacks who are always looking to make the big play because it's often not there. The way you beat the Bears' defense is to matriculate down the field with consistent gains. This is exactly how the Vikings came out of the gate. Kirk Cousins completed his first 17 passes, dinking and dunking down the field to his playmakers, often getting to second or third down before converting. He didn't try to force it and avoided mistakes. Their run game was solid at picking up small chunks of yardage to make the conversions easier. They scored 21 points on their first three drives. The problem for the Vikings was that they had a hard time overcoming negative plays. It's fine to pick up chunks of 4-to-6 yards at a time when you only need 10 yards. But one offensive penalty or sack takes them off schedule. In this case, a few mistakes by Cousins as he got lackadaisical with the lead—which is pretty typical given his history—allowed the Bears legitimately back into the game. An offensive score of 6.28 is still very strong. But given their defensive tendencies, they could not afford to waste drives in order to cover their 7.5-point spread.

I will continue to look for the right moments to back and fade the Bears, as market sentiment shifts for the wrong reasons.

SharpClarke Week 5 Betting Recap

Week 5 was another up-and-down week full of disappointing end-game scenarios. I whiffed on one handicap (details below), but for the most part, the losses did not indicate a bad process. I finished 5-4 but my higher confidence plays missed, so the net result was -0.15 units. This keeps me right around even at 25-24 (51%) for -0.87 units on the season. At least I'm beating the stock market! In the SuperContest, I went 2-3 with wins on IND +3.5 and ARI +5.5, but unfortunate losers with TB -8.5, LAR -5.5, and BAL -3. A couple of quick reflections on some of the bets:

LAR -4.5 (-105) - A bet with (very slight) closing line value (CLV) as the game closed around -5.5 -110, but did not feel like the right side. My handicap involved two main elements: the Cowboys' pass rush was overrated due to the types of opponents they had faced and Cooper Rush would not be able to overcome a deficit against the Rams' defense. The first part was wrong. The Rams' offensive line made this matchup just as bad as the other Cowboys' matchups and ultimately decided the game. The strip-sack fumble and blocked punt gave the Cowboys a lead so my second element was never tested. I was too quick to seek a rebound performance from the Rams.

JAC -7 (-110) - I played this bet early in the week and regretted it. I was planning on taking HOU +7.5 to hedge out with a potential middle, but the market went the other way. I decided to let it ride, and the Jaguars lost outright. Granted, the result was very misleading (by effectiveness, the Jaguars were about 9.24 points better than the Texans), but 7 points were too many for the Jaguars against a competent team. I will be more patient in the early part of the week moving forward instead of always trying to grab the optimal number to make sure my handicap is multi-faceted.

See who SharpClarke is backing with his Week 6 Betting Tracker!

TB -8.5 (-110) - My handicap involved the Bucs building a big enough lead that the spread would not come into play. Unfortunately, they could only go up 21-0 before completely letting their foot off the gas and allowing the Falcons to backdoor cover. It was disappointing, but I still believe the Bucs were the right side in this game.

For all my bets and analysis, you can join the 4for4 Discord via a 4for4 betting subscription (10% off with code SharpClarke) and follow @SharpClarkeNFL on Twitter for alerts. This sheet from Dan Rivera tracks all my betting picks (and those from the rest of the betting staff) on the year. Just click on the tab with my name on it for the results.