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.mdto those URLs or by sendingAccept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
Not startedThis page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 6:40 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 1 · Sun, Sep 11, 2022 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 1
It turned at Q4 9:52, 3rd and 5, on Eddie Jackson — 21.7 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 19–10. Biggest swing: Q4 9:52, Bears +21.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 9:52 · 3rd and 5
Eddie Jackson
Bears
(9:52) (Shotgun) 5-T.Lance pass short middle intended for 15-J.Jennings INTERCEPTED by 4-E.Jackson at SF 47. 4-E.Jackson to SF 21 for 26 yards (5-T.Lance).
21.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Staying on schedule
49ers owned this one and still lost it — 42% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 30% of snaps stayed on schedule.
49ersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
49ers owned this one and still lost it — 8 chunk plays, against Bears at 5 chunk plays.
49ersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Bears won this one — +0.09 expected points per dropback, against 49ers at -0.26 expected points per dropback.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Bears won this one — 1 giveaway, against 49ers at 2 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Who won it for them
What it says about next week
Note
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
The model and the market were 15.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 29 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(9:52) (Shotgun) 5-T.Lance pass short middle intended for 15-J.Jennings INTERCEPTED by 4-E.Jackson at SF 47. 4-E.Jackson to SF 21 for 26 yards (5-T.Lance).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Equanimeous St. Brown's 18-yard touchdown catch with 12:50 left in the 4th put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 1 score that followed.
Equanimeous St. Brown18-yd TD catch18-yard touchdown catchfrom Justin Fields · kick no good, wide rightLead never changed again+610–135 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
49erscategory by categoryBears
49ers ahead 6–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Bears, in turnovers.
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, ±0.35 points.
Every snapexpected points added per play, all downs
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
Running itexpected points added per rush
Neither side “wins” volume or play-calling mix, so neither is drawn as a duel: 49ers ran 67 snaps at a 51% dropback rate against Bears’s 53 at 43%. Red-zone trips: 49ers 3, Bears 4.
49ers outgained Bears 331-206 but lost the turnover battle 2-1. That was the game.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
11 of 11 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.
2 of 11 readings cleared their snap floor in this game, which is under the three this column needs before it will draw the rule. The readings themselves stand.
SF's pass rate over expected, −19.6 pts, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 1 — 2.3 points clear of the next team along.
67 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.4 points. · −2.1σ from their own normal
CHI's early-down pass rate, 35.0%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 1 — 6.5 points clear of the next team along.
40 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.2 points. · −1.2σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
11 of 12 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.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -32 pts to 15 pts
Over Expected room →49ers-19.6 ptsoff script — ran more than the situation asked · −15.5 vs their -4.1 pts, and they swing ±7.4 week to week (−2.10× that swing) · 67 snaps
Bears-17.3 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.4 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.51× that swing) · 53 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 15% to 80%
Tendencies room →49ers41.7%right on their number · −6.1 vs their 47.7%, and they swing ±12.7 week to week (−0.48× that swing) · 48 early downs
Bears35.0%leaned — ran early · −9.8 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−1.20× that swing) · 40 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 47%
Tendencies room →49ers17.6%right on their number · −2.3 vs their 19.9%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (−0.31× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Bears30.4%inside their normal wobble · +5.9 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (+0.67× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -27% to 87%
Fourth Down room →49ers0.0%leaned — took the kick · −24.8 vs their 24.8%, and they swing ±19.8 week to week (−1.25× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Bears—Only 0 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 37.5%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 54%
Tendencies room →49ers13.0%inside their normal wobble · −5.1 vs their 18.2%, and they swing ±6.0 week to week (−0.85× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
Bears2.9%leaned — sat back · −16.7 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−1.23× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 31%
Tendencies room →49ers13.0%inside their normal wobble · −4.4 vs their 17.4%, and they swing ±5.0 week to week (−0.88× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
Bears8.8%right on their number · +0.8 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (+0.22× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
SF's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: -19.6 pts, 15.5 points below their season mean of -4.1 pts and 2.1 times their own 7.4-point weekly swing.
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.
San Francisco 49ers
51 dressed · 7 inactive · 4 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 4
Chicago Bears
53 dressed · 6 inactive · 7 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 7
Who moved the needle
Passing · SF
13/28, 164 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-9.1 expected points added · -18.2% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
8/17, 121 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
-1.7 expected points added · -16.0% completion over expected
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land the morning after the game, not live.
Dante Pettis banked 10.7 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 13.6 | −0.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 8/17, 121 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 11 car, 28 yd |
| Deebo SamuelWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.6 | −6.6 | 82% | 94% | 27% | 2% | 8 car, 52 yd, 1 TD · 2/7, 14 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 12.1 | +10.7 | 40% | 57% | 6% | 13% | 1/1, 51 yd, 1 TD |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 11.3 | +2.1 | 29% | 17% | 6% | 0% | 9 car, 45 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, -2 yd |
| Jauan JenningsWR · Featured Receiver | 10.2 | +1.4 | 60% | 76% | 23% | 28% | 4/6, 62 yd |
| Trey LanceQB · Starter QB | 10.0 | −8.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/28, 164 yd, 1 INT · 13 car, 54 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.8 | +2.4 | 76% | 78% | 18% | 21% | 1/3, 18 yd, 1 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 8.0 | −5.3 | 66% | 83% | 24% | 0% | 17 car, 26 yd · 3/4, 24 yd |
| Brandon AiyukWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.7 | +0.6 | 99% | 100% | 12% | 27% | 1 car, 7 yd · 2/3, 40 yd |
| Jeffery WilsonRB | 5.0 | −6.2 | 59% | 59% | 8% | 1% | 9 car, 22 yd · 2/2, 8 yd |
| Elijah MitchellRB | 4.1 | +0.8 | 25% | 12% | 0% | — | 6 car, 41 yd |
| Byron PringleWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | −0.1 | 17% | 17% | 12% | 31% | 1/2, 22 yd |
| Ray-Ray McCloudWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.0 | −0.5 | 26% | 26% | 8% | 15% | 1/2, 20 yd |
| Ross DwelleyTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | −0.7 | 28% | 41% | 8% | 7% | 1/2, 11 yd |
| Tyler KroftTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.9 | −1.8 | 54% | 41% | 8% | 16% | 1/2, 9 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | −3.4 | 90% | 96% | 18% | 23% | 1/3, 8 yd |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 4 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.2 | 53% | 52% | 12% | 18% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.2 | 83% | 74% | 6% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Kyle JuszczykRB | 0.0 | −2.7 | 37% | 32% | 8% | 3% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Jordan MasonRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 2 lines have no expected-points read and sit off the plane.
Expected points are modelled in full PPR, so the “vs expected” column stays in that unit whichever format the pills are set to. Switching the pills changes the points column, not the plane.
The whole game as one hundred yards. The Bears attack right, the 49ers 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.
(9:52) (Shotgun) 5-T.Lance pass short middle intended for 15-J.Jennings INTERCEPTED by 4-E.Jackson at SF 47. 4-E.Jackson to SF 21 for 26 yards (5-T.Lance).
Q4 9:52 · 49ers · 3rd & 5 at SF 41 · gained nothing · -5.18 EP · −16.5% win probability
156 snaps placed · 12 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 168 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 168 snaps, manual charting on 145. Everything here paints the morning after the week's games — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
5 of 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 84 yards from the CHI 16 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, SF attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
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.
168 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
168 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
49ers6
Bears049ers7Bears049ers10Bears0How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket.
49ers10Bears649ers10Bears7How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
49ers10Bears13How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read, it should have been intercepted.
49ers10Bears19Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
Just the plays, on their own page: 49ers at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trey Lance | 13/28 | 164 | 0 | 1 | 2 | −9.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trey Lance | 13 | 54 | 4.2 | 0 | +3.8 |
| Deebo Samuel | 8 | 52 | 6.5 | 1 | −4.1 |
| Elijah Mitchell |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jauan Jennings | 4 | 6 | 62 | 0 | 23% | −0.3 |
| Brandon Aiyuk | 2 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 12% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Talanoa Hufanga | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Fred Warner | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dre Greenlaw |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 8/17 | 121 | 2 | 1 | 2 | −1.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|
Every number on them comes from the same read as this page, and each one says in words where it came from.
How the win probability moved, the three snaps that bent it, and every drive in order.
/football/games/2022_01_SF_CHI
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
49ers closed -6.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 38; the game landed 29 — under by 9.0.
Conditions and crew
| 6 |
| 41 |
| 6.8 |
| 0 |
| +1.1 |
| Jeffery Wilson | 9 | 22 | 2.4 | 0 | −3.2 |
| Brandon Aiyuk | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| +0.2 |
| Ray-Ray McCloud | 1 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 8% | +0.3 |
| Deebo Samuel | 2 | 7 | 14 | 0 | 27% | −1.6 |
| Ross Dwelley | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 8% | +1.4 |
| Tyler Kroft | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 8% | −0.3 |
| Jeffery Wilson | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8% | −1.2 |
| Kyle Juszczyk | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8% | −2.4 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Azeez Al-Shaair | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nick Bosa | 4 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tashaun Gipson | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hassan Ridgeway | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arik Armstead | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Samson Ebukam | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Emmanuel Moseley | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Herbert | 9 | 45 | 5.0 | 1 | +4.4 |
| Justin Fields | 11 | 28 | 2.5 | 0 | +2.6 |
| David Montgomery | 17 | 26 | 1.5 | 0 | −10.7 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 1 | 51 | 1 | 6% | +5.4 |
| David Montgomery | 3 | 4 | 24 | 0 | 24% | +1.2 |
| Byron Pringle | 1 | 2 | 22 | 0 | 12% | +0.6 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 1 | 3 | 18 | 1 | 18% | +1.4 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 18% | −3.3 |
| Ryan Griffin | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 12% | −1.0 |
| Cole Kmet | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −0.5 |
| Khalil Herbert | 1 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 6% | −1.0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roquan Smith | 7 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
| Nicholas Morrow | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominique Robinson | 4 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kindle Vildor | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Matthew Adams | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trevis Gipson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
