Tweet
X,
I've looked at this game now for 2 weeks because it looks to be a gift from the bookie gods at -6. Here are my reasons for why the line could be so low:
Chicago is 3-1 ATS at home while the Rams are 2-2. Not a big difference, I know, but still..
At home, the Bears are averaging 23 points per, while the Rams seem to struggle on the road averaging just 19.6 a game.
The Bears have covered 2 of the last 3 they played in Chicago against St. Louis
I am a big believer in the 3rd down theory for road faves...if you look back over the last few years, teams that come in as a favorite and allow 10% or higher conversion percentage on 3rd down versus what they themselves convert at, tend to have a poor ATS record. Now, granted, I am giving you MY system for that so don't take it too seriously, even though it has performed quite well for me. In this game, it applies. The Rams are converting at a 33% clip on 3rd down ON THE ROAD while they are ALLOWING opponents to convert at 45%. Take from that what you will!
Something else to consider; The Rams are #8 in the league in total defense...but, surprisingly, the Bears are #13 allowing just 12 more yards per game than the Rams at 310 YPG. Of course, the Bears have played the Lions twice, San Diego, New Orleans (before they caught fire offensively) and Seattle...not exactly the 1999 Rams offensive powerhouses!!
Now, here are my reasons for why I will be whaling on the Rams on Sunday:
The Rams won by 11 points on Sunday with a GRAND total of 74 yards passing!! They average 268 YPG through the air and should get 300+ again from Bulger who tossed for 321 last year when they played each other. The Rams are +5 TO while the Bears are -6. Torry Holt is having a ProBowl season and he should exploit the Bears secondary for a score or 3!! Marshall Faulk is back!!
I would be VERY surprised if Chicago covered. I had Atlanta last week and they covered SU...we also went with Cleveland to cover and they got blown out. I see the Bears/Rams game resembling the latter.
Hope I wasn't rambling, but that's my take!!
Good Luck,
The Ham mer
I've looked at this game now for 2 weeks because it looks to be a gift from the bookie gods at -6. Here are my reasons for why the line could be so low:
Chicago is 3-1 ATS at home while the Rams are 2-2. Not a big difference, I know, but still..
At home, the Bears are averaging 23 points per, while the Rams seem to struggle on the road averaging just 19.6 a game.
The Bears have covered 2 of the last 3 they played in Chicago against St. Louis
I am a big believer in the 3rd down theory for road faves...if you look back over the last few years, teams that come in as a favorite and allow 10% or higher conversion percentage on 3rd down versus what they themselves convert at, tend to have a poor ATS record. Now, granted, I am giving you MY system for that so don't take it too seriously, even though it has performed quite well for me. In this game, it applies. The Rams are converting at a 33% clip on 3rd down ON THE ROAD while they are ALLOWING opponents to convert at 45%. Take from that what you will!
Something else to consider; The Rams are #8 in the league in total defense...but, surprisingly, the Bears are #13 allowing just 12 more yards per game than the Rams at 310 YPG. Of course, the Bears have played the Lions twice, San Diego, New Orleans (before they caught fire offensively) and Seattle...not exactly the 1999 Rams offensive powerhouses!!
Now, here are my reasons for why I will be whaling on the Rams on Sunday:
The Rams won by 11 points on Sunday with a GRAND total of 74 yards passing!! They average 268 YPG through the air and should get 300+ again from Bulger who tossed for 321 last year when they played each other. The Rams are +5 TO while the Bears are -6. Torry Holt is having a ProBowl season and he should exploit the Bears secondary for a score or 3!! Marshall Faulk is back!!
I would be VERY surprised if Chicago covered. I had Atlanta last week and they covered SU...we also went with Cleveland to cover and they got blown out. I see the Bears/Rams game resembling the latter.
Hope I wasn't rambling, but that's my take!!
Good Luck,
The Ham mer
Comment