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 10:10 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 9 · Sun, Nov 6, 2022 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 9
It turned at Q4 1:29, 4th and 10, on Justin Fields — 13.3 win-probability points to the Dolphins on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Miami Dolphins 35–32 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 1:29, Dolphins +13.3% win probability on one snap. Played in 21.2 mph wind — weigh that when reading the passing lines.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 1:29 · 4th and 10
Justin Fields
Dolphins
(1:29) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass incomplete short right to 19-E.St. Brown.
13.3
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
Bears owned this one and still lost it — +0.09 expected points per carry, against Dolphins at -0.20 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Dolphins won this one — +0.61 expected points per dropback, against Bears at +0.26 expected points per dropback.
Dolphinsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Dolphins won this one — +0.30 expected points per snap, against Bears at +0.18 expected points per snap.
Dolphinsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Dolphins won this one — 48% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 44% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Dolphinsthe 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 24 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(1:29) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass incomplete short right to 19-E.St. Brown.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Tyreek Hill's 3-yard touchdown catch with 10:42 left in the 2nd put Miami Dolphins ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 6 scores that followed.
Tyreek Hill3-yd TD catch3-yard touchdown catchfrom Tua TagovailoaLead never changed again+714–1010 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Dolphinscategory by categoryBears
Dolphins ahead 5–3 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, ±0.61 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: Dolphins ran 50 snaps at a 62% dropback rate against Bears’s 70 at 54%. Red-zone trips: Dolphins 6, Bears 5.
Dolphins won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.30 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.
MIA's blitz rate sent, 56.8%, was the highest of the 26 team-games charted in week 9 — 11.9 points clear of the next team along.
37 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 14.5 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
MIA's play-action rate, 48.4%, was the highest of the 26 team-games charted in week 9 — 4.4 points clear of the next team along.
31 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 13.7 points. · +1.2σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected turned over: −28.8 pts in week 8 against −12.0 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
69 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 points. · +0.3σ 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 -33 pts to 26 pts
Over Expected room →Dolphins0.6 ptsright on their number · −1.6 vs their 2.1 pts, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−0.18× that swing) · 50 snaps
Bears-12.0 ptsright on their number · +1.9 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+0.29× that swing) · 69 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 23% to 82%
Tendencies room →Dolphins56.4%right on their number · −1.3 vs their 57.7%, and they swing ±9.0 week to week (−0.14× that swing) · 39 early downs
Bears49.0%inside their normal wobble · +4.2 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+0.51× that swing) · 51 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 67%
Tendencies room →Dolphins48.4%leaned — faked the run · +16.4 vs their 32.0%, and they swing ±13.7 week to week (+1.20× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Bears27.0%right on their number · +2.5 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (+0.28× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -26% to 89%
Fourth Down room →Dolphins—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 31.9%.
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
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -16% to 70%
Tendencies room →Dolphins56.8%leaned — sent pressure · +25.1 vs their 31.7%, and they swing ±14.5 week to week (+1.73× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
Bears9.7%inside their normal wobble · −10.0 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−0.74× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 32%
Tendencies room →Dolphins7.9%inside their normal wobble · −5.7 vs their 13.6%, and they swing ±7.1 week to week (−0.80× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Bears9.7%right on their number · +1.6 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (+0.48× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
MIA's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 56.8%, 25.1 points above their season mean of 31.7% and 1.7 times their own 14.5-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.
Miami Dolphins
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · MIA
21/30, 302 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
19.0 expected points added · +10.1% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
17/28, 123 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
0.4 expected points added · -3.7% 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.
Justin Fields banked 21.3 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 42.7 | +21.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/28, 123 yd, 3 TD · 15 car, 178 yd, 1 TD |
| Tyreek HillWR · Alpha Receiver | 27.3 | +10.8 | 79% | 90% | 28% | 42% | 7/8, 143 yd, 1 TD |
| Tua TagovailoaQB · Starter QB | 24.1 | +8.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/30, 302 yd, 3 TD · 5 car, 0 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 22.0 | +9.8 | 97% | 95% | 22% | 23% | 2 car, 9 yd · 5/6, 41 yd, 2 TD |
| Jaylen WaddleWR · Featured Receiver | 19.5 | +6.7 | 72% | 84% | 24% | 45% | 5/7, 85 yd, 1 TD |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Alpha Receiver | 17.5 | +4.5 | 86% | 92% | 30% | 19% | 1 car, 2 yd · 7/8, 43 yd, 1 TD |
| Jeffery WilsonRB · Committee Back | 16.2 | +5.1 | 49% | 48% | 10% | 3% | 9 car, 51 yd · 3/3, 21 yd, 1 TD |
| Raheem MostertRB · Committee Back | 8.6 | −1.6 | 47% | 48% | 7% | 1% | 9 car, 26 yd, 1 TD · 0/2, 0 yd |
| Trent SherfieldWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.7 | +1.2 | 65% | 58% | 10% | 6% | 3/3, 27 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 5.4 | −3.9 | 70% | 66% | 7% | 0% | 14 car, 36 yd · 1/2, 8 yd |
| Cedrick WilsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.3 | +1.4 | 23% | 19% | 7% | 2% | 2/2, 23 yd |
| Chase ClaypoolWR · Featured Receiver | 3.7 | −5.1 | 35% | 42% | 22% | 21% | 1 car, 4 yd · 2/6, 13 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 2.3 | −1.1 | 28% | 34% | 0% | — | 7 car, 23 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | +0.4 | 36% | 37% | 4% | 6% | 1/1, 12 yd |
| Trevon WescoTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | +1.0 | 24% | 16% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| N'Keal HarryTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | −1.4 | 28% | 24% | 7% | 10% | 1/2, 6 yd |
| Mike GesickiTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.3 | −1.5 | 49% | 71% | 7% | 3% | 1/2, 3 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.0 | 70% | 76% | 7% | 20% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Durham SmytheTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.2 | 58% | 39% | 7% | 0% | 0/2, 0 yd |
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 Bears attack right, the Dolphins 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.
(7:55) 1-T.Tagovailoa pass incomplete short right to 81-D.Smythe.
Q4 7:55 · Dolphins · 4th & 1 at CHI 14 · gained nothing · -3.96 EP · −21.8% win probability
157 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: 170 plays across 19 drives, personnel groupings on 170 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 19 drives ended in points. The longest march was MIA moving 80 yards from the MIA 20 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, MIA 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.
170 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
170 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Dolphins0
Bears3Dolphins6Bears3Dolphins7Bears3Dolphins7Bears9Dolphins7Bears10How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Dolphins13Bears10Dolphins14Bears10Dolphins20Bears10Dolphins21Bears10How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
Dolphins21Bears16Dolphins21Bears17Dolphins27Bears17Dolphins28Bears17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
From outside the pocket.
Dolphins28Bears23Dolphins28Bears25Dolphins34Bears25Dolphins35Bears25Dolphins35Bears31Dolphins35Bears32How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, the ball was not catchable.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, the ball was not catchable.
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: Dolphins at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tua Tagovailoa | 21/30 | 302 | 3 | 0 | 0 | +19.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeffery Wilson | 9 | 51 | 5.7 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Raheem Mostert | 9 | 26 | 2.9 | 1 | −1.4 |
| Tua Tagovailoa |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyreek Hill | 7 | 8 | 143 | 1 | 28% | +12.3 |
| Jaylen Waddle | 5 | 7 | 85 | 1 | 24% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kader Kohou | 7 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elandon Roberts | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jerome Baker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 17/28 | 123 | 3 | 0 | 2 | +0.4 |
| 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_09_MIA_CHI
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Dolphins closed -4, won by 3 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 46; the game landed 67 — over by 21.0.
Conditions and crew
Wind at 21.2 mph is the kind that drags passing depth and kicking range — weigh it when reading the splits.
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| −4.4 |
| +6.7 |
| Trent Sherfield | 3 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 10% | +2.3 |
| Cedrick Wilson | 2 | 2 | 23 | 0 | 7% | +1.8 |
| Jeffery Wilson | 3 | 3 | 21 | 1 | 10% | +4.9 |
| Mike Gesicki | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 7% | −3.3 |
| Raheem Mostert | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −0.6 |
| Durham Smythe | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −4.6 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Eric Rowe | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaelan Phillips | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zach Sieler | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Raekwon Davis | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jevon Holland | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Wilkins | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Melvin Ingram | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Fields | 15 | 178 | 11.9 | 1 | +17.4 |
| David Montgomery | 14 | 36 | 2.6 | 0 | −3.9 |
| Khalil Herbert | 7 | 23 | 3.3 | 0 | −1.6 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | +1.1 |
| Chase Claypool | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darnell Mooney | 7 | 8 | 43 | 1 | 30% | +3.6 |
| Cole Kmet | 5 | 6 | 41 | 2 | 22% | +3.3 |
| Chase Claypool | 2 | 6 | 13 | 0 | 22% | −1.8 |
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 4% | +0.8 |
| David Montgomery | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 7% | +0.1 |
| N'Keal Harry | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 7% | −0.4 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −3.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eddie Jackson | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Sanborn | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Morrow | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Trevis Gipson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joe Thomas | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
