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.
connecting · reading the slate
Game Center
2022 Week 5 · Sun, Oct 9, 2022 · U.S. Bank Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 5
It turned at Q4 12:54, 1st and 10, on Kindle Vildor — 17.9 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
Minnesota Vikings 29–22. Biggest swing: Q4 12:54, Bears +17.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 12:54 · 1st and 10
Kindle Vildor
Bears
(12:54) 8-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 19-A.Thielen INTERCEPTED by 22-K.Vildor at CHI 30. 22-K.Vildor to CHI 48 for 18 yards (67-E.Ingram).
17.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Vikings won this one — 12 of 15 on third down, against Bears at 4 of 10 on third down.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Vikings won this one — 58% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 38% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Vikings won this one — +0.06 expected points per carry, against Bears at -0.36 expected points per carry.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Vikings won this one — +0.23 expected points per snap, against Bears at +0.01 expected points per snap.
Vikingsthe 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 10.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 26 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(12:54) 8-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 19-A.Thielen INTERCEPTED by 22-K.Vildor at CHI 30. 22-K.Vildor to CHI 48 for 18 yards (67-E.Ingram).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Kirk Cousins's 1-yard rushing touchdown with 2:29 left in the 4th put Minnesota Vikings ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
9 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryVikings
Vikings ahead 8–0 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — sacks taken.
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, ±0.36 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 48 snaps at a 63% dropback rate against Vikings’s 72 at 61%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Vikings 4.
Vikings won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.23 expected points added per play vs 0.01.
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.
CHI's play-action rate, 6.9%, is past their previous low of 18.8% in week 2 — the lowest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
29 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.9 points. · −2.0σ from their own normal
CHI's early-down pass rate, 55.6%, is past their previous high of 48.9% in week 4 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
36 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.2 points. · +1.3σ 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 17 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-10.8 ptsright on their number · +3.1 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+0.46× that swing) · 47 snaps
Vikings-1.2 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.7 vs their 2.5 pts, and they swing ±5.1 week to week (−0.71× that swing) · 71 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 23% to 86%
Tendencies room →Bears55.6%leaned — passed early · +10.7 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+1.31× that swing) · 36 early downs
Vikings53.6%inside their normal wobble · −6.4 vs their 59.9%, and they swing ±9.7 week to week (−0.65× that swing) · 56 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 56%
Tendencies room →Bears6.9%leaned — dropped back clean · −17.6 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−1.99× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Vikings40.9%leaned — faked the run · +12.5 vs their 28.4%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (+1.16× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -34% to 108%
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
Vikings—Only 0 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 36.9%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 54%
Tendencies room →Bears11.4%inside their normal wobble · −8.3 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−0.61× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
Vikings13.8%inside their normal wobble · −5.3 vs their 19.1%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (−0.68× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 26%
Tendencies room →Bears6.8%right on their number · −1.3 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (−0.37× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
Vikings10.0%right on their number · −1.8 vs their 11.8%, and they swing ±5.6 week to week (−0.33× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
CHI's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 6.9%, 17.6 points below their season mean of 24.5% and 2.0 times their own 8.9-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 · 4 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Minnesota Vikings
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · MIN
32/41, 296 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
12.0 expected points added · +7.5% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
15/21, 208 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
7.5 expected points added · +2.4% completion over expected
Receiving · MIN
12/13 for 154 yds, 0 TD
33% of team targets · 12.9 expected points added
Receiving · CHI
4/4 for 62 yds, 0 TD
19% of team targets · 4.3 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.
David Montgomery banked 6.6 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin JeffersonWR · Alpha Receiver | 30.3 | +6.5 | 100% | 98% | 33% | 57% | 1/1, 23 yd · 12/13, 154 yd |
| Dalvin CookRB · Committee Back | 26.1 | +6.0 | 57% | 47% | 5% | 0% | 18 car, 94 yd, 2 TD · 2/2, 27 yd |
| Kirk CousinsQB · Starter QB | 22.2 | −2.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 32/41, 296 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 4 yd, 1 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 18.2 | +6.6 | 72% | 73% | 19% | 1% | 12 car, 20 yd, 1 TD · 4/4, 62 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 17.0 | +2.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 15/21, 208 yd, 1 TD · 8 car, 47 yd |
| K.J. OsbornWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.1 | +1.0 | 82% | 82% | 13% | 19% | 5/5, 41 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 8.5 | +2.5 | 90% | 100% | 19% | 14% | 4/4, 45 yd |
| Irv SmithTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.2 | +0.9 | 63% | 73% | 13% | 13% | 4/5, 42 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 7.9 | +6.2 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Featured Receiver | 7.2 | −1.8 | 94% | 100% | 24% | 57% | 2/5, 52 yd |
| Jalen ReagorWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.1 | +2.6 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Alexander MattisonRB · Receiving Back | 7.0 | −4.9 | 43% | 51% | 10% | 0% | 9 car, 19 yd · 3/4, 21 yd |
| Adam ThielenWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.7 | −7.4 | 96% | 98% | 18% | 23% | 4/7, 27 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.4 | +1.3 | 62% | 67% | 10% | 10% | 2/2, 24 yd |
| Johnny MundtTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | −0.3 | 44% | 31% | 5% | 0% | 2/2, 6 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 1.1 | −0.6 | 28% | 27% | 0% | — | 4 car, 11 yd |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.1 | −0.3 | 26% | 13% | 5% | 0% | 1/1, 1 yd |
| Ihmir Smith-MarsetteWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.5 | −2.8 | 38% | 37% | 10% | 6% | 1/2, 15 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.8 | 60% | 63% | 10% | 15% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Ty ChandlerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Kene NwangwuRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Dan ChisenaWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
5 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 3 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 Vikings 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.
(12:54) 8-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 19-A.Thielen INTERCEPTED by 22-K.Vildor at CHI 30. 22-K.Vildor to CHI 48 for 18 yards (67-E.Ingram).
Q4 12:54 · Vikings · 1st & 10 at CHI 42 · gained nothing · -5.88 EP · −25.5% win probability
156 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 167 plays across 17 drives, personnel groupings on 167 snaps, manual charting on 140. 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.
9 of 17 drives ended in points. The longest march was MIN moving 86 yards from the MIN 14 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; MIN 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.
167 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
167 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears0
Vikings6Bears0Vikings7Bears3Vikings7Bears3Vikings13Bears3Vikings14Bears3Vikings20Bears3Vikings21Bears9Vikings21Bears10Vikings21Bears16Vikings21How the play was built
A man in motion.
From outside the pocket.
Bears19Vikings21How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
Bears22Vikings21How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
Bears22Vikings27Bears22Vikings29Win 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 Vikings, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 15/21 | 208 | 1 | 0 | 2 | +7.5 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 8 | 47 | 5.9 | 0 | +3.6 |
| David Montgomery | 12 | 20 | 1.7 | 1 | −3.1 |
| Khalil Herbert |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 4 | 4 | 62 | 0 | 19% | +4.3 |
| Darnell Mooney | 2 | 5 | 52 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaylon Jones | 8 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Morrow |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirk Cousins | 32/41 | 296 | 1 | 1 | 1 | +12.0 |
| Justin Jefferson | 1/1 | 23 | 0 |
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_05_CHI_MIN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Vikings closed -10, won by 7 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 44; the game landed 51 — over by 7.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 4 |
| 11 |
| 2.8 |
| 0 |
| −2.1 |
| 24% |
| +1.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 4 | 4 | 45 | 0 | 19% | +3.6 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 2 | 2 | 24 | 0 | 10% | +2.1 |
| Ihmir Smith-Marsette | 1 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 10% | −5.2 |
| Velus Jones | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 5% | +1.7 |
| Ryan Griffin | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5% | −0.6 |
| Dante Pettis | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 10% | −3.0 |
| 5 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roquan Smith | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kindle Vildor | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Armon Watts | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominique Robinson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| +2.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dalvin Cook | 18 | 94 | 5.2 | 2 | +1.3 |
| Alexander Mattison | 9 | 19 | 2.1 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Kirk Cousins | 4 | 4 | 1.0 | 1 | +0.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Jefferson | 12 | 13 | 154 | 0 | 33% | +12.9 |
| Irv Smith | 4 | 5 | 42 | 0 | 13% | +0.4 |
| K.J. Osborn | 5 | 5 | 41 | 0 | 13% | +2.8 |
| Dalvin Cook | 2 | 2 | 27 | 0 | 5% | +2.6 |
| Adam Thielen | 4 | 7 | 27 | 0 | 18% | −4.1 |
| Alexander Mattison | 3 | 4 | 21 | 0 | 10% | +2.3 |
| Johnny Mundt | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 5% | −0.9 |
| Jalen Reagor | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3% | +1.2 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Kendricks | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordan Hicks | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Cameron Dantzler | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Harrison Phillips | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Patrick Peterson | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Danielle Hunter | 3 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chandon Sullivan | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| D.J. Wonnum | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Za'Darius Smith | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Dan Chisena | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
