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.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 1:08 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 11 · Sun, Nov 20, 2022 · Mercedes-Benz Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 11
It turned at Q4 1:13, 3rd and 5, on Jaylinn Hawkins — 18.6 win-probability points to the Falcons on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 1:13 · 3rd and 5
Jaylinn Hawkins
Falcons
(1:13) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 32-D.Montgomery INTERCEPTED by 32-J.Hawkins at CHI 40. 32-J.Hawkins to CHI 40 for no gain (11-D.Mooney).
Atlanta Falcons 27–24 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 1:13, Falcons +18.6% win probability on one snap.
18.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 9 of 16 on third down, against Falcons at 2 of 7 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 3 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Falcons at 2 touchdowns on 4 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Staying on schedule
Falcons won this one — 48% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 44% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Falconsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Bears owned this one and still lost it — +0.14 expected points per dropback, against Falcons at +0.01 expected points per dropback.
Bearsthe 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 2.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 7 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(1:13) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 32-D.Montgomery INTERCEPTED by 32-J.Hawkins at CHI 40. 32-J.Hawkins to CHI 40 for no gain (11-D.Mooney).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Younghoe Koo's 53-yard field goal with 1:52 left in the 4th put Atlanta Falcons ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Younghoe Koo53-yd field goal53-yard field goalholder B.Pinion · snap L.McCulloughLead never changed again+324–279 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryFalcons
Deadlocked at 4–4 categories. Biggest gap to Falcons, 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 66 snaps at a 47% dropback rate against Falcons’s 48 at 46%. Red-zone trips: Bears 3, Falcons 4.
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.
CHI's blitz rate sent, 54.5%, is past their previous high of 33.3% in week 10 — the highest of their 11 charted games through week 11.
22 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 13.6 points.
CHI's sack or hit rate, 4.5%, is past their previous low of 6.8% in week 5 — the lowest of their 11 charted games through week 11.
22 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 3.4 points.
CHI's play-action rate turned over: 38.5% in week 10 against 19.4% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
31 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.9 points.
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 9 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-18.4 ptsinside their normal wobble · −4.5 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.67× that swing) · 66 snaps
Falcons-11.6 ptsright on their number · +2.4 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±5.5 week to week (+0.43× that swing) · 48 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 67%
Tendencies room →Bears38.0%inside their normal wobble · −6.8 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.84× that swing) · 50 early downs
Falcons42.5%right on their number · −0.2 vs their 42.7%, and they swing ±8.1 week to week (−0.03× that swing) · 40 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 65%
Tendencies room →Bears19.4%inside their normal wobble · −5.2 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−0.59× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Falcons31.8%right on their number · −3.8 vs their 35.6%, and they swing ±11.3 week to week (−0.33× that swing) · 22 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -38% to 88%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 0 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 37.5%.
Falcons33.3%right on their number · +8.5 vs their 24.9%, and they swing ±24.8 week to week (+0.34× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 60%
Tendencies room →Bears54.5%off script — sent pressure · +34.9 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (+2.56× that swing) · 22 dropbacks
Falcons9.7%leaned — sat back · −13.6 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±13.3 week to week (−1.03× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 24%
Tendencies room →Bears4.5%leaned — stayed blocked · −3.5 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (−1.05× that swing) · 22 dropbacks
Falcons16.1%leaned — got home · +5.2 vs their 10.9%, and they swing ±5.0 week to week (+1.04× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
CHI's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 54.5%, 34.9 points above their season mean of 19.7% and 2.6 times their own 13.6-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 · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Atlanta Falcons
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
14/21, 153 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
1.5 expected points added · +6.0% completion over expected
Passing · ATL
13/20, 131 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
1.5 expected points added · -0.9% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
3/4 for 54 yds, 0 TD
21% of team targets · 1.2 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
David Montgomery banked 4.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 22.6 | −1.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 14/21, 153 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 18 car, 85 yd, 1 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 21.1 | +4.4 | 80% | 61% | 21% | 22% | 17 car, 67 yd, 1 TD · 3/4, 54 yd |
| Marcus MariotaQB · Starter QB | 17.7 | +0.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/20, 131 yd, 1 TD · 13 car, 25 yd, 1 TD |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.9 | +3.3 | 81% | 74% | 26% | 31% | 4/5, 29 yd, 1 TD |
| Cordarrelle PattersonRB · Committee Back | 11.9 | +2.9 | 49% | 42% | 11% | 0% | 10 car, 52 yd · 2/2, 7 yd |
| Tyler AllgeierRB | 7.4 | +1.2 | 55% | 50% | 6% | 6% | 8 car, 55 yd · 1/1, 9 yd |
| Kyle PittsTE · Alpha Receiver | 7.3 | −0.9 | 44% | 63% | 28% | 31% | 3/5, 43 yd |
| Drake LondonWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.2 | +0.6 | 76% | 75% | 17% | 12% | 1/3, 2 yd, 1 TD |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 6.5 | +0.3 | 91% | 74% | 21% | 18% | 3/4, 35 yd |
| Damiere ByrdWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.9 | +2.0 | 35% | 38% | 11% | 13% | 2/2, 29 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.4 | +1.6 | 72% | 61% | 11% | 6% | 2/2, 24 yd |
| Olamide ZaccheausWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | −1.1 | 76% | 71% | 11% | 34% | 1 car, 13 yd · 1/2, 9 yd |
| Chase ClaypoolWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.1 | −1.3 | 42% | 45% | 16% | 4% | 2/3, 11 yd |
| MyCole PruittTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.7 | +1.1 | 56% | 29% | 6% | 4% | 1/1, 17 yd |
| KhaDarel HodgeWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.3 | +0.5 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Caleb HuntleyRB | 1.6 | −0.3 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.8 | −4.4 | 22% | 16% | 5% | 1% | 6 car, 8 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Avery WilliamsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Velus JonesRB | 0.0 | — | 12% | 3% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 12% | 3% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 26% | 19% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Byron PringleWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 20% | 19% | 0% | — | No touches. |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 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 Falcons 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.
(1:13) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 32-D.Montgomery INTERCEPTED by 32-J.Hawkins at CHI 40. 32-J.Hawkins to CHI 40 for no gain (11-D.Mooney).
Q4 1:13 · Bears · 3rd & 5 at CHI 30 · gained nothing · -3.28 EP · −22.5% win probability
154 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: 165 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 165 snaps, manual charting on 138. Everything here paints once the weekly sync ingests the game — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
9 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was ATL moving 75 yards from the ATL 25 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; ATL 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.
165 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
165 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears0
Falcons6Bears0Falcons7Bears6Falcons7Bears7Falcons7Bears10Falcons7How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Bears16Falcons7Bears17Falcons7Bears17Falcons13Bears17Falcons14Bears17Falcons17Bears17Falcons23Bears17Falcons24Bears23Falcons24Bears24Falcons24How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Bears24Falcons27How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown, it should have been intercepted, dropped.
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: Bears at Falcons, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 14/21 | 153 | 1 | 1 | 4 | +1.5 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 18 | 85 | 4.7 | 1 | +2.8 |
| David Montgomery | 17 | 67 | 3.9 | 1 | −0.5 |
| Trestan Ebner | 6 | 8 | 1.3 | 0 | −2.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 3 | 4 | 54 | 0 | 21% | +1.2 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 4 | 35 | 0 | 21% | +1.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaquan Brisker | 6 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Sanborn | 8 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marcus Mariota | 13/20 | 131 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +1.5 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Allgeier |
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_11_CHI_ATL
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Falcons closed -3 and it landed exactly on the number — a push.
Total closed 48.5; the game landed 51 — over by 2.5.
Conditions and crew
| Darnell Mooney | 4 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 26% | +1.5 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 2 | 2 | 24 | 0 | 11% | +4.0 |
| Chase Claypool | 2 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 16% | +0.7 |
| Trestan Ebner | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −1.0 |
| 6 |
| 1 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Joe Thomas | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Matthew Adams | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Blackwell | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 |
| 55 |
| 6.9 |
| 0 |
| +1.2 |
| Cordarrelle Patterson | 10 | 52 | 5.2 | 0 | −4.6 |
| Marcus Mariota | 13 | 25 | 1.9 | 1 | −4.1 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | +0.9 |
| Caleb Huntley | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Pitts | 3 | 5 | 43 | 0 | 28% | +0.6 |
| Damiere Byrd | 2 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 11% | +2.7 |
| MyCole Pruitt | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 6% | +1.0 |
| KhaDarel Hodge | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 6% | +1.3 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 6% | −0.3 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 11% | −0.2 |
| Cordarrelle Patterson | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 11% | −1.3 |
| Caleb Huntley | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6% | −0.4 |
| Drake London | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 17% | −1.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mykal Walker | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Rashaan Evans | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darren Hall | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Richie Grant | 1 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arnold Ebiketie | 5 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lorenzo Carter | 4 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Troy Andersen | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| A.J. Terrell | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylinn Hawkins | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Isaiah Oliver | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
