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 3:44 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 5 · Sun, Oct 9, 2022 · FirstEnergy Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 5
It turned at Q4 1:14, 4th and 1, on Justin Herbert — 31.7 win-probability points to the Browns on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 30–28 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 1:14, Browns +31.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 1:14 · 4th and 1
Justin Herbert
Browns
(1:14) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass incomplete short right to 81-M.Williams (23-M.Emerson).
31.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Chargers won this one — +0.40 expected points per carry, against Browns at +0.05 expected points per carry.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Browns owned this one and still lost it — 3 touchdowns on 5 trips, against Chargers at 2 touchdowns on 6 trips.
Brownsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Chargers won this one — no giveaways, against Browns at 1 giveaway.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Browns owned this one and still lost it — 4 of 10 on third down, against Chargers at 3 of 10 on third down.
Brownsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
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 9.0 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 15 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Browns.
(1:14) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass incomplete short right to 81-M.Williams (23-M.Emerson).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Taylor Bertolet's 27-yard field goal with 9:32 left in the 4th put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Taylor Bertolet27-yd field goal27-yard field goalholder J.Scott · snap J.HarrisLead never changed again+330–2810 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Chargerscategory by categoryBrowns
Browns ahead 5–4 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, ±0.40 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: Chargers ran 67 snaps at a 57% dropback rate against Browns’s 65 at 55%. Red-zone trips: Chargers 6, Browns 5.
Chargers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.29 expected points added per play vs 0.18.
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.
LAC's fourth-and-short go rate, 66.7%, is past their previous high of 42.9% in week 2 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
3 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 14 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 18.2 points. · +2.0σ from their own normal
LAC's sack or hit rate turned over: 25.6% in week 4 against 8.3% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.0 points. · −0.7σ from their own normal
CLE's sack or hit rate turned over: 25.0% in week 4 against 7.9% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
38 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 points. · −0.5σ 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 -26 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Chargers0.6 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.6 vs their 4.3 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 67 snaps
Browns-7.7 ptsright on their number · −0.3 vs their -7.4 pts, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (−0.04× that swing) · 65 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 94%
Tendencies room →Chargers50.9%leaned — ran early · −12.8 vs their 63.7%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (−1.12× that swing) · 55 early downs
Browns50.0%right on their number · −0.2 vs their 50.2%, and they swing ±11.5 week to week (−0.01× that swing) · 54 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 49%
Tendencies room →Chargers36.8%leaned — faked the run · +10.2 vs their 26.7%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+1.18× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Browns19.4%right on their number · +0.7 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.07× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -19% to 118%
Fourth Down room →Chargers66.7%leaned — went for it · +36.3 vs their 30.4%, and they swing ±18.2 week to week (+1.99× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Browns—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 57.4%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 61%
Tendencies room →Chargers36.1%right on their number · +4.8 vs their 31.3%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.43× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Browns21.1%right on their number · −2.7 vs their 23.7%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (−0.22× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 31%
Tendencies room →Chargers8.3%inside their normal wobble · −5.1 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (−0.73× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Browns7.9%inside their normal wobble · −3.4 vs their 11.3%, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.51× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
LAC's fourth-and-short go rate was the night's one real departure: 66.7%, 36.3 points above their season mean of 30.4% and 2.0 times their own 18.2-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.
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Cleveland Browns
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CLE
21/34, 230 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
7.0 expected points added · +4.2% completion over expected
Passing · LAC
22/34, 228 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
4.4 expected points added · +0.3% completion over expected
Receiving · LAC
10/13 for 134 yds, 0 TD
39% of team targets · 4.5 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.
Austin Ekeler banked 21.9 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin EkelerRB · Committee Back | 35.9 | +21.9 | 59% | 58% | 12% | 0% | 16 car, 173 yd, 1 TD · 4/4, 26 yd, 1 TD |
| Nick ChubbRB · Committee Back | 25.4 | +12.6 | 52% | 44% | 3% | 6% | 17 car, 134 yd, 2 TD · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Mike WilliamsWR · Alpha Receiver | 23.4 | +1.6 | 85% | 87% | 39% | 66% | 10/13, 134 yd |
| Amari CooperWR · Alpha Receiver | 20.6 | −2.6 | 90% | 94% | 38% | 40% | 7/12, 76 yd, 1 TD |
| Joshua KelleyRB | 16.2 | +6.8 | 38% | 39% | 6% | 0% | 10 car, 49 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 33 yd |
| David NjokuTE · Featured Receiver | 14.8 | +5.2 | 85% | 89% | 19% | 17% | 6/6, 88 yd |
| Kareem HuntRB · Committee Back | 14.7 | +2.9 | 49% | 58% | 9% | 0% | 11 car, 47 yd, 1 TD · 3/3, 10 yd |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 14.4 | −5.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 22/34, 228 yd, 1 TD · 5 car, 13 yd |
| Jacoby BrissettQB · Starter QB | 14.4 | −3.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/34, 230 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 3 car, 32 yd |
| Donovan Peoples-JonesWR · Featured Receiver | 9.0 | −2.5 | 88% | 92% | 22% | 30% | 4/7, 50 yd |
| Josh PalmerWR · Featured Receiver | 5.4 | −5.6 | 73% | 89% | 18% | 25% | 3/6, 24 yd |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.9 | −0.7 | 59% | 61% | 6% | 1% | 2/2, 9 yd |
| David BellWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | +0.1 | 43% | 44% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.2 | −4.3 | 65% | 79% | 9% | 14% | 1/3, 2 yd |
| Zander HorvathRB | 0.3 | −0.4 | 14% | 3% | 0% | — | 2 car, 3 yd |
| Harrison BryantTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | 57% | 47% | 3% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Chester RogersWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Anthony SchwartzWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 12% | 22% | 3% | 3% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Sony MichelRB | 0.0 | −1.6 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Tre' McKittyTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −4.9 | 51% | 39% | 6% | 0% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Donald ParhamTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.6 | 25% | 18% | 3% | 5% | 0/1, 0 yd |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 1 line has no expected-points read and sits 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 Browns attack right, the Chargers 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.
(2:55) (Shotgun) 7-J.Brissett pass short right intended for 2-A.Cooper INTERCEPTED by 32-A.Gilman at LAC -1. 32-A.Gilman to LAC 17 for 18 yards (7-J.Brissett; 18-Dav.Bell).
Q4 2:55 · Browns · 3rd & 7 at LAC 9 · gained nothing · -4.22 EP · −39.1% win probability
167 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: 179 plays across 21 drives, personnel groupings on 179 snaps, manual charting on 148. 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.
10 of 21 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 99 yards from the LAC 1 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CLE attacks right, LAC 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.
179 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
179 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Chargers0
Browns6Chargers0Browns7Chargers0Browns13Chargers0Browns14Chargers3Browns14Chargers9Browns14Chargers10Browns14Chargers16Browns14Chargers17Browns14Chargers17Browns20Chargers17Browns21Chargers23Browns21Chargers24Browns21Chargers27Browns21Chargers27Browns27Chargers27Browns28Chargers30Browns28How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
From outside the pocket.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Win 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: Chargers at Browns, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 22/34 | 228 | 1 | 0 | 1 | +4.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austin Ekeler | 16 | 173 | 10.8 | 1 | +11.6 |
| Joshua Kelley | 10 | 49 | 4.9 | 1 | +1.7 |
| Justin Herbert |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Williams | 10 | 13 | 134 | 0 | 39% | +4.5 |
| Joshua Kelley | 2 | 2 | 33 | 0 | 6% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derwin James | 7 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| J.C. Jackson | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Alohi Gilman |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacoby Brissett | 21/34 | 230 | 1 | 1 | 0 | +7.0 |
| 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_05_LAC_CLE
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Chargers closed -1 and covered, winning by 2.
Total closed 47; the game landed 58 — over by 11.0.
Conditions and crew
| 5 |
| 13 |
| 2.6 |
| 0 |
| +3.7 |
| Zander Horvath | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | −1.4 |
| Sony Michel | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| +2.5 |
| Austin Ekeler | 4 | 4 | 26 | 1 | 12% | +2.7 |
| Josh Palmer | 3 | 6 | 24 | 0 | 18% | −0.5 |
| DeAndre Carter | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 6% | +0.8 |
| Gerald Everett | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 9% | −1.6 |
| Donald Parham | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.9 |
| Tre' McKitty | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −1.5 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Sebastian Joseph | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Drue Tranquill | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asante Samuel | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Murray | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Johnson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Covington | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nick Chubb | 17 | 134 | 7.9 | 2 | +4.0 |
| Kareem Hunt | 11 | 47 | 4.3 | 1 | −3.0 |
| Jacoby Brissett | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 | +3.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Njoku | 6 | 6 | 88 | 0 | 19% | +7.7 |
| Amari Cooper | 7 | 12 | 76 | 1 | 38% | −0.1 |
| Donovan Peoples-Jones | 4 | 7 | 50 | 0 | 22% | +2.0 |
| Kareem Hunt | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 9% | −0.1 |
| David Bell | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | −0.1 |
| Nick Chubb | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −1.1 |
| Harrison Bryant | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.5 |
| Anthony Schwartz | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.3 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denzel Ward | 8 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grant Delpit | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jacob Phillips | 4 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Johnson | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ronnie Harrison | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Martin Emerson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Greg Newsome | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jadeveon Clowney | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sione Takitaki | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
