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 11:25 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 7 · Mon, Oct 24, 2022 · Gillette Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 7
It turned at Q2 1:40, 1st and 10 — 16.7 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 33–14 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q2 1:40, Bears +16.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 1:40 · 1st and 10
Unnamed on the sheet
Bears
(1:40) (Shotgun) 4-B.Zappe FUMBLES (Aborted) at NE 35, RECOVERED by CHI-93-Ju.Jones at NE 37. 93-Ju.Jones to NE 37 for no gain (38-R.Stevenson).
16.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Bears won this one — 1 giveaway, against Patriots at 4 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Bears won this one — +0.12 expected points per carry, against Patriots at -0.34 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Bears won this one — 9 chunk plays, against Patriots at 4 chunk plays.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Bears won this one — +0.14 expected points per snap, against Patriots at -0.25 expected points per snap.
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 14.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 31 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(1:40) (Shotgun) 4-B.Zappe FUMBLES (Aborted) at NE 35, RECOVERED by CHI-93-Ju.Jones at NE 37. 93-Ju.Jones to NE 37 for no gain (38-R.Stevenson).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Khalil Herbert's 25-yard touchdown catch with 2:00 left in the 2nd put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Khalil Herbert25-yd TD catch25-yard touchdown catchfrom Justin FieldsLead never changed again+717–149 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPatriots
Bears ahead 8–1 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Patriots, in 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, ±0.35 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: Bears ran 69 snaps at a 38% dropback rate against Patriots’s 47 at 68%. Red-zone trips: Bears 6, Patriots 2.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.14 expected points added per play vs -0.25.
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.
NE's blitz rate sent, 3.8%, is past their previous low of 13.5% in week 4 — the lowest of their 7 charted games through week 7.
26 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.6 points. · −1.8σ from their own normal
NE's sack or hit rate, 23.1%, is past their previous high of 20.0% in week 6 — the highest of their 7 charted games through week 7.
26 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 points. · +1.3σ from their own normal
CHI's early-down pass rate turned over: 53.8% in week 6 against 33.3% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
51 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.2 points. · −1.4σ 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-16.3 ptsright on their number · −2.3 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.35× that swing) · 69 snaps
Patriots-4.5 ptsright on their number · −3.2 vs their -1.3 pts, and they swing ±6.8 week to week (−0.47× that swing) · 47 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 23% to 81%
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) · 51 early downs
Patriots63.9%inside their normal wobble · +7.6 vs their 56.3%, and they swing ±9.6 week to week (+0.80× that swing) · 36 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -9% to 48%
Tendencies room →Bears34.6%leaned — faked the run · +10.1 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (+1.14× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Patriots15.6%right on their number · −2.4 vs their 18.0%, and they swing ±10.6 week to week (−0.23× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -47% to 91%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 37.5%.
Patriots25.0%right on their number · +3.3 vs their 21.7%, and they swing ±27.0 week to week (+0.12× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 59%
Tendencies room →Bears12.5%inside their normal wobble · −7.2 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−0.53× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Patriots3.8%leaned — sat back · −22.4 vs their 26.3%, and they swing ±12.6 week to week (−1.78× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 31%
Tendencies room →Bears9.4%right on their number · +1.3 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (+0.39× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Patriots23.1%leaned — got home · +8.9 vs their 14.2%, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+1.32× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
NE's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 3.8%, 22.4 points below their season mean of 26.3% and 1.8 times their own 12.6-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 · 2 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
New England Patriots
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · NE
14/22, 185 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT
-2.5 expected points added · -4.1% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
13/21, 179 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
2.4 expected points added · -1.3% completion over expected
Receiving · NE
8/8 for 59 yds, 0 TD
29% of team targets · 2.5 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.
Khalil Herbert banked 7.6 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhamondre StevensonRB · Committee Back | 23.8 | +5.4 | 77% | 78% | 29% | 1% | 11 car, 39 yd, 1 TD · 8/8, 59 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 23.4 | +6.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/21, 179 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 14 car, 82 yd, 1 TD |
| Khalil HerbertRB · Committee Back | 15.7 | +7.6 | 41% | 46% | 10% | 0% | 12 car, 62 yd · 1/2, 25 yd, 1 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 12.2 | +1.4 | 56% | 62% | 0% | — | 15 car, 62 yd, 1 TD |
| Jakobi MeyersWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.4 | +7.2 | 100% | 100% | 7% | 13% | 2/2, 34 yd, 1 TD |
| DeVante ParkerWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.8 | +1.7 | 92% | 91% | 18% | 34% | 3/5, 68 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Alpha Receiver | 8.8 | −2.4 | 59% | 73% | 33% | 34% | 4/7, 48 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Alpha Receiver | 8.3 | −2.1 | 80% | 85% | 29% | 45% | 3/6, 53 yd |
| Bailey ZappeQB · Starter QB | 5.3 | −1.7 | 65% | — | 0% | — | 14/22, 185 yd, 1 TD, 2 INT · 2 car, -1 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.2 | +1.3 | 96% | 100% | 14% | 18% | 2/3, 32 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | +2.1 | 31% | 46% | 5% | 0% | 1 car, 29 yd · 1/1, 2 yd |
| Tyquan ThorntonWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.9 | −4.2 | 85% | 94% | 18% | 31% | 1/5, 19 yd |
| N'Keal HarryTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.4 | +0.5 | 42% | 42% | 5% | 7% | 1/1, 14 yd |
| Hunter HenryTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | −0.8 | 85% | 84% | 7% | 5% | 1/2, 12 yd |
| Damien HarrisRB | 2.0 | −2.4 | 17% | 16% | 7% | 3% | 3 car, 8 yd · 1/2, 2 yd |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | +0.2 | 15% | 4% | 5% | 0% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| Jonnu SmithTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.4 | −3.0 | 33% | 22% | 11% | 11% | 1/3, 4 yd |
| Mac JonesQB | 0.9 | −3.5 | 35% | — | 0% | — | 3/6, 13 yd, 1 INT · 3 car, 24 yd |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.8 | −3.0 | 11% | 8% | 0% | — | 3 car, 8 yd |
| Nelson AgholorWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
1 player played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number.
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 Patriots 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.
(1:40) (Shotgun) 4-B.Zappe FUMBLES (Aborted) at NE 35, RECOVERED by CHI-93-Ju.Jones at NE 37. 93-Ju.Jones to NE 37 for no gain (38-R.Stevenson).
Q2 1:40 · Patriots · 1st & 10 at NE 39 · gained nothing · -4.54 EP · −15.3% win probability
151 snaps placed · 10 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 161 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 161 snaps, manual charting on 136. 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 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 75 yards from the CHI 25 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; NE 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.
161 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
161 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears3
Patriots0Bears9Patriots0Bears10Patriots0Bears10Patriots6Bears10Patriots7How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
Bears10Patriots13Bears10Patriots14Bears16Patriots14Bears17Patriots14How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Bears20Patriots14Bears23Patriots14Bears26Patriots14Bears32Patriots14Bears33Patriots14Win 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 Patriots, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 13/21 | 179 | 1 | 1 | 4 | +2.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 14 | 82 | 5.9 | 1 | +3.5 |
| Khalil Herbert | 12 | 62 | 5.2 | 0 | +0.4 |
| David Montgomery |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darnell Mooney | 3 | 6 | 53 | 0 | 29% | +2.2 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 4 | 7 | 48 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roquan Smith | 8 | 4 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Nicholas Morrow |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey Zappe | 14/22 | 185 | 1 | 2 | 1 | −2.5 |
| Mac Jones | 3/6 | 13 | 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_07_CHI_NE
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Patriots closed -9.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 40; the game landed 47 — over by 7.0.
Conditions and crew
| 15 |
| 62 |
| 4.1 |
| 1 |
| −0.1 |
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 29 | 29.0 | 0 | +2.1 |
| Trestan Ebner | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | −1.8 |
| 33% |
| −0.2 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 3 | 32 | 0 | 14% | +2.7 |
| Khalil Herbert | 1 | 2 | 25 | 1 | 10% | +2.5 |
| N'Keal Harry | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 5% | +0.9 |
| Ryan Griffin | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5% | +0.0 |
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5% | −0.3 |
| 2 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Armon Watts | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sterling Weatherford | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mike Pennel | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trestan Ebner | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 |
| 0 |
| −5.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rhamondre Stevenson | 11 | 39 | 3.5 | 1 | +0.5 |
| Mac Jones | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 0 | +1.6 |
| Damien Harris | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | −1.0 |
| Bailey Zappe | 2 | -1 | -0.5 | 0 | −4.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeVante Parker | 3 | 5 | 68 | 0 | 18% | +1.4 |
| Rhamondre Stevenson | 8 | 8 | 59 | 0 | 29% | +2.5 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 2 | 2 | 34 | 1 | 7% | +4.2 |
| Tyquan Thornton | 1 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 18% | −4.9 |
| Hunter Henry | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 7% | +0.3 |
| Jonnu Smith | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 11% | −4.8 |
| Damien Harris | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7% | −0.9 |
| Nelson Agholor | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −3.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Whaun Bentley | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lawrence Guy | 2 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Davon Godchaux | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Devin McCourty | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jabrill Peppers | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Anfernee Jennings | 2 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jalen Mills | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jahlani Tavai | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Adrian Phillips | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Myles Bryant | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
