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 10:09 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 2 · Sun, Sep 18, 2022 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 2
It turned at Q1 6:24, 2nd and 10, on E.St. — 12.0 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 27–10 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q1 6:24, Bears +12.0% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 6:24 · 2nd and 10
E.St.
Bears
(6:24) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep left to 19-E.St. Brown to GB 25 for 30 yards (31-A.Amos) [91-P.Smith].
12.0
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Throwing the ball
Packers won this one — +0.44 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.47 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Packers won this one — 5 of 9 on third down, against Bears at 1 of 7 on third down.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Packers won this one — 55% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 41% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Packers won this one — +0.21 expected points per snap, against Bears at -0.08 expected points per snap.
Packersthe 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 11.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 29 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(6:24) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep left to 19-E.St. Brown to GB 25 for 30 yards (31-A.Amos) [91-P.Smith].
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Aaron Jones's 15-yard rushing touchdown with 15:00 left in the 2nd put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
7 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 7–0 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, ±0.47 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: Bears ran 41 snaps at a 39% dropback rate against Packers’s 65 at 45%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Packers 5.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.21 expected points added per play vs -0.08.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
11 of 12 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.
GB's blitz rate sent, 0.0%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 2 — 3.3 points clear of the next team along.
16 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.0 points. · −1.9σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected, −24.8 pts, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 2 — 6.6 points clear of the next team along.
41 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 points. · −1.6σ from their own normal
GB's early-down pass rate turned over: 68.8% in week 1 against 39.3% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
56 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.3 points. · −1.1σ 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 19 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-24.8 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −10.9 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−1.62× that swing) · 41 snaps
Packers-9.4 ptsinside their normal wobble · −6.0 vs their -3.4 pts, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−0.70× that swing) · 65 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 84%
Tendencies room →Bears33.3%leaned — ran early · −11.5 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−1.41× that swing) · 33 early downs
Packers39.3%leaned — ran early · −13.7 vs their 53.0%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (−1.11× that swing) · 56 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 54%
Tendencies room →Bears18.8%inside their normal wobble · −5.8 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−0.65× that swing) · 16 dropbacks
Packers37.9%leaned — faked the run · +11.1 vs their 26.8%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (+1.03× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -18% to 107%
Fourth Down room →Bears33.3%right on their number · −4.2 vs their 37.5%, and they swing ±18.7 week to week (−0.22× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Packers—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 44.3%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 54%
Tendencies room →Bears10.3%inside their normal wobble · −9.3 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−0.69× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Packers0.0%leaned — sat back · −22.8 vs their 22.8%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (−1.89× that swing) · 16 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 37%
Tendencies room →Bears13.8%leaned — got home · +5.7 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (+1.70× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Packers31.3%leaned — got home · +14.5 vs their 16.7%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+1.83× that swing) · 16 dropbacks
GB's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 0.0%, 22.8 points below their season mean of 22.8% and 1.9 times their own 12.0-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
19/25, 234 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
11.5 expected points added · +4.7% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
7/11, 70 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-6.4 expected points added · -1.7% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
2/4 for 39 yds, 0 TD
36% of team targets · -0.0 expected points added
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.
Aaron Jones banked 17.6 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron JonesRB · Committee Back | 32.0 | +17.6 | 59% | 66% | 12% | 4% | 15 car, 132 yd, 1 TD · 3/3, 38 yd, 1 TD |
| Aaron RodgersQB · Starter QB | 16.4 | +2.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/25, 234 yd, 2 TD · 5 car, 10 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 15.6 | +4.4 | 80% | 75% | 18% | 2% | 15 car, 122 yd · 2/2, 14 yd |
| Sammy WatkinsWR · Rotational Receiver | 12.3 | +4.9 | 65% | 62% | 16% | 50% | 3/4, 93 yd |
| Allen LazardWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.3 | +0.5 | 81% | 90% | 12% | 22% | 2/3, 13 yd, 1 TD |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 8.8 | −8.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 7/11, 70 yd, 1 INT · 8 car, 20 yd, 1 TD |
| A.J. DillonRB · Committee Back | 7.7 | −6.6 | 57% | 52% | 12% | 13% | 18 car, 61 yd · 1/3, 6 yd |
| Randall CobbWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.7 | +2.0 | 29% | 41% | 12% | 21% | 3/3, 37 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Alpha Receiver | 5.9 | +0.3 | 71% | 69% | 36% | 43% | 2/4, 39 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 5.1 | +1.9 | 20% | 25% | 9% | 0% | 4 car, 38 yd · 1/1, 3 yd |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.7 | +0.2 | 37% | 45% | 12% | 0% | 2/3, 27 yd |
| Christian WatsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.9 | −0.6 | 32% | 24% | 12% | 0% | 3/3, 9 yd |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.1 | 0.0 | 40% | 48% | 8% | 0% | 2/2, 11 yd |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.8 | +0.8 | 27% | 13% | 9% | 13% | 1/1, 18 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Featured Receiver | 0.6 | −3.1 | 90% | 100% | 18% | 40% | 1/2, -4 yd |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −0.9 | 85% | 94% | 9% | 4% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Byron PringleWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 34% | 25% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Ihmir Smith-MarsetteWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 56% | 88% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Tyler DavisTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.0 | 31% | 24% | 4% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Amari RodgersWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 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 Packers attack right, the Bears 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.
(15:00) (Shotgun) 33-A.Jones right end for 15 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q2 15:00 · Packers · 2nd & 11 at CHI 15 · gained 15 · +2.81 EP · +11.9% win probability
134 snaps placed · 13 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 147 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 147 snaps, manual charting on 121. 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.
7 of 18 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 89 yards from the CHI 10 for a turnover on downs. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB attacks right, CHI 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.
147 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
147 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears0
Packers3How the play was built
A trick play, nobody in motion.
Bears6Packers3Bears7Packers3How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Bears7Packers9Bears7Packers10Bears7Packers16Bears7Packers17Bears7Packers23Bears7Packers24Bears10Packers24Bears10Packers27Win 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: Bears at Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 7/11 | 70 | 0 | 1 | 3 | −6.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 15 | 122 | 8.1 | 0 | +7.0 |
| Khalil Herbert | 4 | 38 | 9.5 | 0 | +1.4 |
| Justin Fields |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 2 | 4 | 39 | 0 | 36% | −0.0 |
| Ryan Griffin | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nicholas Morrow | 7 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Rodgers | 19/25 | 234 | 2 | 0 | 3 | +11.5 |
| 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_02_CHI_GB
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Packers closed -10.5 and covered, winning by 17.
Total closed 42; the game landed 37 — under by 5.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 8 |
| 20 |
| 2.5 |
| 1 |
| −5.1 |
| 9% |
| +1.2 |
| David Montgomery | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 18% | −0.8 |
| Khalil Herbert | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 9% | −0.2 |
| Cole Kmet | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 9% | −0.4 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 2 | -4 | 0 | 18% | −1.5 |
| 5 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Roquan Smith | 2 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Trevis Gipson | 2 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Robert Quinn | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Angelo Blackson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Jones | 15 | 132 | 8.8 | 1 | +8.1 |
| A.J. Dillon | 18 | 61 | 3.4 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 5 | 10 | 2.0 | 0 | −7.8 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sammy Watkins | 3 | 4 | 93 | 0 | 16% | +6.3 |
| Aaron Jones | 3 | 3 | 38 | 1 | 12% | +5.3 |
| Randall Cobb | 3 | 3 | 37 | 0 | 12% | +3.5 |
| Romeo Doubs | 2 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 12% | −0.2 |
| Allen Lazard | 2 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 12% | +2.7 |
| Robert Tonyan | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 8% | +0.5 |
| Christian Watson | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 12% | −1.1 |
| A.J. Dillon | 1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 12% | −0.9 |
| Tyler Davis | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preston Smith | 4 | 3 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darnell Savage | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quay Walker | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Adrian Amos | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dean Lowry | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rasul Douglas | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dallin Leavitt | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jarran Reed | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| De'Vondre Campbell | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaire Alexander | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
