NFL Week 6 Bad Beats: Bears, Seahawks Top Rankings With Unfortunate Losses

NFL Week 6 Bad Beats: Bears, Seahawks Top Rankings With Unfortunate Losses article feature image
Credit:

Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images. Pictured: Justin Fields.

Every week in the 2023 NFL season, we’ll recap how Action Network's NFL Luck Rankings fared and take a look at some of the unluckiest results in our NFL Bad Beat Rankings.

With no Luck Ranking matchups in Week 5, unlucky teams remain 7-5-2 ATS in 2023 and 106-59-6 overall since 2018 in luck-based matchups.

We can also use Expected Scores, which power the Luck Rankings, to look at bad beats. We’re discussing bad beats not in terms of a win or loss, but in terms of win probability swing. so be sure to check out the science behind the NFL Bad Beat Rankings.

For a quick synopsis, we're looking at expected scores and comparing them to actual scores. We're not saying the team that suffered the bad beat should have won, just that the scoreline was unflattering compared to their expected performance given the game situations they encountered.

Here's a look at which teams were unluckiest in Week 6 before heading into the Monday Night Football game between the Dallas Cowboys and Los Angeles Chargers.

The ultimate NFL betting cheat code

Best bets for every game

Our NFL model's biggest weekly edges

Profitable data-driven system picks

NFL Bad Beats: Week 6

Win probability swings indicate the difference in win percentage between how teams actually performed vs. how the final score indicates they performed.

1. Chicago Bears (+3)

  • Actual Result: Vikings 19, Bears 13
  • Expected Score: Bears 29, Vikings 15
  • Swing: 20 points, 54.2% win probability

The Vikings finally get some luck as they entered Week 5 as the second-most unlucky team in the NFL.

The biggest single play was when Bears backup quarterback Tyson Bagent fumbled the ball and Jordan Hicks recovered it and took it 42 yards for a Vikings touchdown. From there, things spiraled out of control for the Bears.

The very next drive ended on downs in Vikings territory, and Chicago's final drive ended with a Bagent interception once again in Vikings territory. In fact, five of the six Bears second-half drives reached Minnesota territory, and they came away with just seven points.

The Bears' offensive success rate (48.4%) was nearly seven percentage points better than the Vikings' (40.7%), yet Chicago ended up on the losing side of the equation.

2. Seattle Seahawks (+3)

  • Actual Result: Bengals 17, Seahawks 13
  • Expected Score: Seahawks 27, Bengals 17
  • Swing: 14 points, 40.3% win probability

Seattle joins the bad beat ranks for the first time this year after some misfortune against Cincinnati.

Just looking at the stat sheet, the Seahawks outgained the Bengals 381-214, including 24-15 in the first-down department. But it gets worse.

Four second-half drives for the Seahawks made their way inside the Bengals' 10-yard line. Normally we'd expect a couple of touchdowns, or several short field goals at worst — instead, Seattle walked away with just three points from those drives.

3. Atlanta Falcons (-2)

  • Actual Result: Commanders 24, Falcons 16
  • Expected Score: Falcons 20, Commanders 18
  • Swing: 10 points, 29.4% win probability

There were two major sequences that doomed the Falcons.

The first occurred when the Falcons had 1st and goal at the Washington 5-yard line. A Tyler Allgeier first-down rush only gained one yard, but a second-down penalty on the Commanders put the ball at the 2-yard line for second down.

From there, Falcons quarterback Desmond Ridder threw an incompletion, a subsequent delay of game pushed the Falcons back to the Commanders 7-yard line, and then Ridder threw his second interception of the game.

The next sequence came on the very last drive when the Falcons had 3rd and 1 at the Commanders' 34-yard line. A single yard would have kept the Falcons in the game, but Ridder was picked for a third time, icing the game for the Commanders.

Thus, the Falcons take the loss despite putting up more than double the offensive yards (402-193).

How would you rate this article?

This site contains commercial content. We may be compensated for the links provided on this page. The content on this page is for informational purposes only. Action Network makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the information given or the outcome of any game or event.