For the complete documentation index, see llms.txt. Markdown variants of the ranked boards (dynasty and fantasy rankings for NFL, NBA, MLB and CFB) are available by appending .md to those URLs or by sending Accept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
Washington Commanders 24 at Arizona Cardinals 6. Final.
Cardinals -2 upset
The verdict · 2018 Week 1
Washington Commanders 24, Cardinals 6 — and it was over early.
It turned at Q2 15:00, 2nd and 10, on Chris Thompson — 8.8 win-probability points to the Commanders on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 15:00 · 2nd and 10
Chris Thompson
Commanders
(15:00) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 25-C.Thompson for 13 yards, TOUCHDOWN [90-R.Nkemdiche].
U 43.5 ✓
Dome
Cardinals closed -2 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Washington Commanders 24–6 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q2 15:00, Commanders +8.8% win probability on one snap.
8.8
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
Jordan ReedCommandersQ1 14:19(14:19) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short right to 86-J.Reed to WAS 44 for 16 yards (36-B.Baker). PENALTY on ARI-33-T.Boston, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at WAS 44.
7.0pts
Jordan ReedCommandersQ2 8:46(8:46) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 86-J.Reed pushed ob at ARI 27 for 22 yards (41-A.Bethea).
7.6pts
What separated them
Third down
Commanders won this one — 7 of 13 on third down, against Cardinals at 1 of 8 on third down.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Commanders won this one — 10 chunk plays, against Cardinals at 4 chunk plays.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Commanders won this one — +0.26 expected points per dropback, against Cardinals at -0.38 expected points per dropback.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Commanders won this one — 54% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Cardinals at 39% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Drawn from the weekly play-by-play file, which paints on the Monday 4:00 AM ET sync after the game.
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
How the game was won
The model and the market were 1.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 5 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Cardinals.
MarketModelmodel higher on Cardinalshigher on Commanders159 of 167 plays carry both curves
(15:00) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 25-C.Thompson for 13 yards, TOUCHDOWN [90-R.Nkemdiche].
Swing −8.8 for CardinalsExpected points −2.40 for CardinalsModel and market agree here.play 34
The solid line is the betting market's home win probability; the dashed line is the play-by-play model's. The shaded band between them is the disagreement — emerald where the model liked the home team more, red where it liked the away team more. Drag across the curve or use arrow keys to replay the game; gold diamonds mark the biggest swings.
Highest-leverage plays
2nd · 15:00ARI +9% win prob(15:00) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 25-C.Thompson for 13 yards, TOUCHDOWN [90-R.Nkemdiche].
2nd · 8:46ARI +8% win prob(8:46) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short left to 86-J.Reed pushed ob at ARI 27 for 22 yards (41-A.Bethea).
1st · 14:19ARI +7% win prob(14:19) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass short right to 86-J.Reed to WAS 44 for 16 yards (36-B.Baker). PENALTY on ARI-33-T.Boston, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at WAS 44.
1st · 10:29WAS +7% win prob(10:29) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete short left [20-D.Bucannon]. PENALTY on WAS-11-A.Smith, Intentional Grounding, 12 yards, enforced at ARI 29.
2nd · 9:18ARI +5% win prob(9:18) 11-A.Smith up the middle to ARI 49 for 1 yard (98-C.Peters).
3rd · 12:20ARI +5% win prob(12:20) 5-T.Way punts 55 yards to ARI 41, Center-57-N.Sundberg. 13-C.Kirk to ARI 42 for 1 yard (40-J.Harvey-Clemons). PENALTY on ARI-33-T.Boston, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at ARI 41.
SettledThe modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
The margin ledger
Chris Thompson's 13-yard touchdown catch with 15:00 left in the 2nd put Washington Commanders ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Lead
2nd15:00Chris Thompson·13-yd TD catch13-yard touchdown catchfrom Alex Smithfrom Alex SmithLead never changed again+77–0
2nd0:12Jordan Reed·4-yd TD catch4-yard touchdown catchfrom Alex Smithfrom Alex Smith+721–0
4th12:16Dustin Hopkins·31-yd field goal31-yard field goalholder T.Way · snap N.Sundberg+324–0
4th5:51David Johnson·2-yd TD run2-yard rushing touchdowntwo-point no good+624–6
5 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Situational splits
Commanderscategory by categoryCardinals
Commanders8–1Cardinals
430Total yards214
5.8Yards per play4.2
54%Success rate39%
54%Third-down rate13%
3Red-zone touchdowns1
10Explosive plays4
24First downs14
3Sacks taken2
1Turnovers2
The read
Commanders ahead 8–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
Expected points added, per play
The centre line is an average play. A bar to the right of it is a side that gained more than the situation was worth; a bar to the left is a side that lost ground. All six bars share one scale, ±0.38 points.
Every snapexpected points added per play, all downs
+0.17Commanders: +0.17 expected points added per play
−0.24Cardinals: −0.24 expected points added per play
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
+0.26Commanders: +0.26 expected points added per play
−0.38Cardinals: −0.38 expected points added per play
Running itexpected points added per rush
+0.09Commanders: +0.09 expected points added per play
+0.18Cardinals: +0.18 expected points added per play
Neither side “wins” volume or play-calling mix, so neither is drawn as a duel: Commanders ran 74 snaps at a 49% dropback rate against Cardinals’s 51 at 75%. Red-zone trips: Commanders 4, Cardinals 2.
NoteCommanders won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.17 expected points added per play vs -0.24.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
The Read
6 of 8 readings cleared their snap floor and were tested against four comparisons: this week's whole slate, the team's own season, the week before, and the team's own ordinary spread. Every bar below is set in that team's own week-to-week swing, never in league points — one team's swing runs 1.6 to 3.1 times the entire league's spread.
highest in the league that weekAgainst the weekTendencies
ARI's sack or hit rate, 30.6%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 1 — 4.0 points clear of the next team along.
2.2 times their own weekly swing above their number.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 16 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points.
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
Was this normal for them?
6 of 8 readings cleared their snap floor. Every deviation below is measured in that team's own game-to-game swing, not in league points — because one game's swing runs from 1.6 to 3.1 times the whole league's spread.
their week-to-week swingall 32 teams
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -23 pts to 13 pts
right on their number · +0.5 vs their 15.3%, and they swing ±5.5 week to week (+0.10× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Cardinals30.6%
off script — got home · +14.4 vs their 16.1%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+2.21× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Play-action rate
Charted from 2022. The columns exist for 2018 and are entirely empty, which is not a season of data.
Blitz rate sent
Charted from 2022. The columns exist for 2018 and are entirely empty, which is not a season of data.
NoteARI's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 30.6%, 14.4 points above their season mean of 16.1% and 2.2 times their own 6.5-point weekly swing.
The Game Day Roster
Who was out, who dressed and never took a snap, and who was on the field how much. Game-day list and snap counts from the weekly roster and snap feeds. Practice-squad and injured-reserve players are not shown — they were never on the game-day list.
Snap, route and expected-points data starts in 2021. This game is older than the usage record, so there is no opportunity read for it — the box score above is the complete picture we hold.
The field map
Every snap, where it happened
The whole game as one hundred yards. The Cardinals attack right, the Commanders attack left, so a change of possession is a reversal you can see. Reading down is the order the snaps were played — not the clock, so a two-minute drill gets the same room as any other fourteen snaps. This game is final.
Commanders←Cardinals→
Q1Q2Q3Q4
A.Smith pass−10% win probabilitymoment 1 of 4
(10:29) (Shotgun) 11-A.Smith pass incomplete short left [20-D.Bucannon]. PENALTY on WAS-11-A.Smith, Intentional Grounding, 12 yards, enforced at ARI 29.
Q1 10:29 · Commanders · 3rd & 9 at ARI 29 · gained nothing · -3.26 EP · −9.6% win probability
157 snaps placed · 10 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
The Film Room · post-game
Post-game film: 167 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 167 snaps. Everything here paints once the weekly sync ingests the game — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
Possession by possession
The field rail
5 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was WAS moving 92 yards from the WAS 8 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; ARI attacks right, WAS attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
Every snap
Play stream
167 of 167 plays
Team
Quarter
Down
Play type
Expected points added
Event
Charted
Plays shown
167
EPA per play
-0.00
Success rate
45%
Yards
642
Who was on the field
Personnel groupings
Offensive grouping on every pass and run. A group needs five snaps in this game before it gets a number — under that the sample is a coin flip and the cell reads a dash instead. The names of the eleven on the field are only recorded from 2023 onward, so this game gives the grouping without the roster.
Commanders1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR44+0.2064%
Cardinals1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR44-0.2882%
Commanders1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR15-0.0127%
Commanders1 RB, 3 TE, 1 WR11+0.249%
Cardinals1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR3——
Commanders2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR3——
Cardinals2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR2——
Cardinals2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR1——
Cardinals2 RB, 1 TE, 1 WR1——
Commanders1 RB, 2 TE, 0 WR1——
snapsepapass rate
167 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
Every play
Ball
When
Play
Only
Who
167 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
1st quarter33 plays
Punt12 plays, from the Commanders 23 to the Cardinals 29
Punt8 plays, from the Cardinals 8 to the Cardinals 40
The period ended12 plays, from the Commanders 20 to the Cardinals 13
2nd quarter45 plays
Commanders6Cardinals0
Commanders7Cardinals0
Touchdown2 plays
Punt5 plays, from the Cardinals 25 to the Cardinals 28
Commanders13Cardinals0
Commanders14Cardinals0
Touchdown16 plays, from the Commanders 27 to the Cardinals 1
Punt5 plays, from the Cardinals 25 to the Cardinals 27
Commanders20Cardinals0
Commanders21Cardinals0
Touchdown14 plays, from the Commanders 8 to the Cardinals 4
The period ended3 plays
3rd quarter40 plays
Punt6 plays, from the Cardinals 25 to the Commanders 41
Punt4 plays
Punt5 plays, from the Cardinals 31 to the Cardinals 35
Punt15 plays, from the Commanders 8 to the Cardinals 44
Intercepted6 plays, from the Cardinals 15 to the Commanders 43
The period ended4 plays, from the Commanders 24 to the Cardinals 43
4th quarter49 plays
Commanders24Cardinals0
Field goal8 plays, from the Cardinals 37 to the Cardinals 13
Commanders24Cardinals6
Touchdown17 plays, from the Cardinals 25 to the Commanders 2
Punt8 plays, from the Commanders 6 to the Commanders 11
Turnover on downs5 plays, from the Commanders 26 to the Commanders 7
Fumble lost3 plays, from the Commanders 7 to the Commanders 8
Fumble lost6 plays, from the Cardinals 40 to the Commanders 45
The period ended2 plays
Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
