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 11:27 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 8 · Sun, Oct 30, 2022 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 8
It turned at Q4 0:06, 3rd and 2, on Michael Pittman — 21.9 win-probability points to the Commanders on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Washington Commanders 17–16 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:06, Commanders +21.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:06 · 3rd and 2
Michael Pittman
Commanders
(:06) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass short middle to 11-M.Pittman to IND 38 for 5 yards (29-K.Fuller) [96-J.Smith-Williams].
21.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Colts owned this one and still lost it — 5 of 12 on third down, against Commanders at 2 of 12 on third down.
Coltsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Commanders won this one — 2 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Colts at 1 touchdown on 3 trips.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Commanders won this one — 1 giveaway, against Colts at 2 giveaways.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Commanders won this one — 44% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Colts at 40% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Commandersthe 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 2.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 8 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Colts.
(:06) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass short middle to 11-M.Pittman to IND 38 for 5 yards (29-K.Fuller) [96-J.Smith-Williams].
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Taylor Heinicke's 1-yard rushing touchdown with 0:26 left in the 4th put Washington Commanders ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
7 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Commanderscategory by categoryColts
Commanders ahead 5–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Colts, in 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, ±0.35 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: Commanders ran 61 snaps at a 62% dropback rate against Colts’s 53 at 53%. Red-zone trips: Commanders 3, Colts 3.
Commanders won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.07 expected points added per play vs -0.15.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
12 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.
IND's play-action rate, 35.7%, is past their previous high of 31.7% in week 4 — the highest of their 8 charted games through week 8.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.2 points. · +2.1σ from their own normal
IND's pass rate over expected turned over: +6.8 pts in week 7 against −8.7 pts here — they threw more than the situation asked then and ran more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
53 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points. · −0.7σ from their own normal
WAS's sack or hit rate turned over: 2.9% in week 7 against 25.0% here — they stayed blocked then and got home now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.8 points. · +0.6σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
12 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 -29 pts to 14 pts
Over Expected room →Commanders-3.5 ptsright on their number · +4.1 vs their -7.6 pts, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (+0.49× that swing) · 61 snaps
Colts-8.7 ptsinside their normal wobble · −4.8 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−0.74× that swing) · 53 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 12% to 86%
Tendencies room →Commanders58.7%inside their normal wobble · +9.6 vs their 49.1%, and they swing ±14.4 week to week (+0.67× that swing) · 46 early downs
Colts51.2%inside their normal wobble · −5.7 vs their 56.9%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.60× that swing) · 41 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -10% to 51%
Tendencies room →Commanders26.3%right on their number · +5.6 vs their 20.7%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (+0.47× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Colts35.7%off script — faked the run · +19.4 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (+2.10× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -53% to 125%
Fourth Down room →Commanders33.3%right on their number · −1.9 vs their 35.3%, and they swing ±28.1 week to week (−0.07× that swing) · 6 fourth-and-short calls
Colts0.0%leaned — took the kick · −36.3 vs their 36.3%, and they swing ±34.8 week to week (−1.04× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 47%
Tendencies room →Commanders10.7%leaned — sat back · −10.3 vs their 21.0%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (−1.03× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Colts21.1%inside their normal wobble · +5.7 vs their 15.3%, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+0.88× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 44%
Tendencies room →Commanders25.0%inside their normal wobble · +6.2 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (+0.63× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Colts18.4%inside their normal wobble · +4.5 vs their 14.0%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+0.68× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
IND's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 35.7%, 19.4 points above their season mean of 16.3% and 2.1 times their own 9.2-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.
Washington Commanders
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · WAS
23/31, 279 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
1.7 expected points added · +4.3% completion over expected
Passing · IND
17/23, 201 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
1.2 expected points added · +7.9% 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.
Antonio Gibson banked 6.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor HeinickeQB · Starter QB | 22.1 | +4.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/31, 279 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 6 car, 29 yd, 1 TD |
| Antonio GibsonRB · Committee Back | 20.7 | +6.4 | 36% | 37% | 23% | 0% | 7 car, 19 yd · 7/7, 58 yd, 1 TD |
| Terry McLaurinWR · Alpha Receiver | 16.6 | +3.5 | 95% | 92% | 27% | 61% | 1 car, -7 yd · 6/8, 113 yd |
| Nyheim Miller-HinesRB | 12.9 | +5.3 | 36% | 43% | 9% | 13% | 5 car, 20 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 29 yd |
| Michael PittmanWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.3 | −1.6 | 95% | 96% | 39% | 30% | 7/9, 53 yd |
| Curtis SamuelWR · Rotational Receiver | 10.9 | +2.5 | 74% | 82% | 13% | 22% | 4 car, 29 yd · 3/4, 50 yd |
| Alec PierceWR · Featured Receiver | 9.5 | +1.7 | 57% | 68% | 22% | 52% | 3/5, 65 yd |
| Parris CampbellWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.1 | +5.8 | 79% | 75% | 9% | 2% | 1 car, 28 yd · 2/2, 43 yd |
| Sam EhlingerQB · Starter QB | 7.5 | −6.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/23, 201 yd · 6 car, 15 yd |
| Jonathan TaylorRB · Committee Back | 5.6 | −6.6 | 69% | 64% | 4% | 1% | 16 car, 76 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| J.D. McKissicRB · Receiving Back | 5.0 | −2.6 | 36% | 50% | 17% | 0% | 2 car, 6 yd · 3/5, 14 yd |
| Kylen GransonTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | −0.6 | 55% | 43% | 13% | 0% | 3/3, 11 yd |
| Cam SimsWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.1 | +0.1 | 80% | 87% | 7% | 20% | 1/2, 21 yd |
| Armani RogersTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.3 | −0.7 | 36% | 42% | 7% | 3% | 1/2, 13 yd |
| Brian RobinsonRB | 2.0 | −1.4 | 25% | 11% | 0% | — | 8 car, 20 yd |
| John BatesTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | +0.1 | 33% | 18% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Dax MilneWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.4 | +0.1 | 15% | 13% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 4 yd |
| Mo Alie-CoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.1 | 50% | 46% | 4% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Keke CouteeWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Deon JacksonRB | -0.4 | −1.2 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
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 Colts attack right, the Commanders 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.
(:06) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass short middle to 11-M.Pittman to IND 38 for 5 yards (29-K.Fuller) [96-J.Smith-Williams].
Q4 0:06 · Colts · 3rd & 2 at IND 33 · gained 5 · -0.09 EP · −30.0% win probability
146 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: 157 plays across 23 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, manual charting on 134. 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 23 drives ended in points. The longest march was WAS moving 89 yards from the WAS 11 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND attacks right, WAS 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.
157 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
157 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Commanders0
Colts3How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Commanders6Colts3Commanders7Colts3How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
Commanders7Colts6How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
A screen, a run-pass option, play action, a man in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap.
Commanders7Colts9How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Commanders7Colts15Commanders7Colts16Commanders10Colts16How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a quarterback sneak, a man in motion.
Commanders16Colts16Commanders17Colts16How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill.
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: Commanders at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Heinicke | 23/31 | 279 | 1 | 1 | 2 | +1.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Heinicke | 6 | 29 | 4.8 | 1 | +0.7 |
| Curtis Samuel | 4 | 29 | 7.3 | 0 | +1.7 |
| Brian Robinson |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terry McLaurin | 6 | 8 | 113 | 0 | 27% | +4.9 |
| Antonio Gibson | 7 | 7 | 58 | 1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Allen | 6 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Benjamin St-Juste | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamin Davis |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Ehlinger | 17/23 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 2 | +1.2 |
| 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_08_WAS_IND
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Colts closed -3 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 40.5; the game landed 33 — under by 7.5.
Conditions and crew
| 8 |
| 20 |
| 2.5 |
| 0 |
| −3.5 |
| Antonio Gibson | 7 | 19 | 2.7 | 0 | −2.0 |
| J.D. McKissic | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Terry McLaurin | 1 | -7 | -7.0 | 0 | −2.0 |
| 23% |
| +3.1 |
| Curtis Samuel | 3 | 4 | 50 | 0 | 13% | +7.1 |
| Cam Sims | 1 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 7% | −4.5 |
| J.D. McKissic | 3 | 5 | 14 | 0 | 17% | −4.7 |
| Armani Rogers | 1 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 7% | +0.0 |
| John Bates | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | +0.2 |
| Dax Milne | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3% | −0.0 |
| 5 |
| 1 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Bobby McCain | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Daron Payne | 3 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kamren Curl | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kendall Fuller | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darrick Forrest | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shaka Toney | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Mayo | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 16 | 76 | 4.8 | 0 | −9.2 |
| Parris Campbell | 1 | 28 | 28.0 | 0 | +1.8 |
| Nyheim Miller-Hines | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 1 | +0.3 |
| Sam Ehlinger | 6 | 15 | 2.5 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Deon Jackson | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 | −1.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alec Pierce | 3 | 5 | 65 | 0 | 22% | +4.8 |
| Michael Pittman | 7 | 9 | 53 | 0 | 39% | +1.5 |
| Parris Campbell | 2 | 2 | 43 | 0 | 9% | +3.1 |
| Nyheim Miller-Hines | 2 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 9% | +1.8 |
| Kylen Granson | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 13% | −1.2 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −1.9 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodney McLeod | 3 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenny Moore | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zaire Franklin | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Bobby Okereke | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grover Stewart | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Stephon Gilmore | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shaquille Leonard | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| E.J. Speed | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Isaiah Rodgers | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Julian Blackmon | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
