The biggest swing of the game · Q2 5:09 · 1st and 10
Garrett Wilson
Jets
(5:09) 5-M.White pass deep left to 17-G.Wilson for 54 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
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 12:43 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 12 · Sun, Nov 27, 2022 · MetLife Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 12
It turned at Q2 5:09, 1st and 10, on Garrett Wilson — 14.6 win-probability points to the Jets on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 5:09 · 1st and 10
Garrett Wilson
Jets
(5:09) 5-M.White pass deep left to 17-G.Wilson for 54 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
New York Jets 31–10 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q2 5:09, Jets +14.6% win probability on one snap.
14.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Throwing the ball
Jets won this one — +0.49 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.26 expected points per dropback.
Jetsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Jets won this one — 7 of 12 on third down, against Bears at 4 of 13 on third down.
Jetsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Jets won this one — 50% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 38% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Jetsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Jets won this one — +0.25 expected points per snap, against Bears at -0.06 expected points per snap.
Jetsthe 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 10.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 22 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(5:09) 5-M.White pass deep left to 17-G.Wilson for 54 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Garrett Wilson's 54-yard touchdown catch with 5:09 left in the 2nd put New York Jets ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 3 scores that followed.
7 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Jets ahead 7–0 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — turnovers.
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, ±0.49 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 55 snaps at a 51% dropback rate against Jets’s 60 at 50%. Red-zone trips: Bears 3, Jets 5.
Jets won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.25 expected points added per play vs -0.06.
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.
Nothing cleared the bars. No reading led the week's slate, set a season mark, reversed the week before, or sat two of the team's own standard deviations off their number — which is what most Sundays look like, and is the finding rather than a gap.
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 -32 pts to 11 pts
Over Expected room →right on their number · −2.7 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.40× that swing) · 55 snaps
right on their number · −2.6 vs their -3.1 pts, and they swing ±5.2 week to week (−0.49× that swing) · 60 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 89%
Tendencies room →right on their number · −1.2 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.15× that swing) · 39 early downs
leaned — ran early · −18.3 vs their 56.6%, and they swing ±12.7 week to week (−1.44× that swing) · 47 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -10% to 48%
Tendencies room →leaned — dropped back clean · −10.3 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−1.16× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
right on their number · +4.9 vs their 18.5%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.44× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -54% to 114%
Fourth Down room →right on their number · +5.3 vs their 37.5%, and they swing ±18.7 week to week (+0.28× that swing) · 7 fourth-and-short calls
inside their normal wobble · −30.4 vs their 30.4%, and they swing ±32.9 week to week (−0.92× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 54%
Tendencies room →right on their number · +0.3 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (+0.02× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · +3.3 vs their 14.5%, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (+0.52× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 39%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +1.9 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (+0.57× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · −5.3 vs their 19.6%, and they swing ±7.4 week to week (−0.72× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
NYJ's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 38.3%, 18.3 points below their season mean of 56.6% and 1.4 times their own 12.7-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 · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
New York Jets
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · NYJ
22/28, 315 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
17.5 expected points added · +8.6% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
14/25, 179 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-7.0 expected points added · -6.5% completion over expected
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Mike White banked 14.2 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26.4 | +11.2 | 83% | 90% | 29% | 35% | 1 car, -1 yd · 5/8, 95 yd, 2 TD | |
| 24.8 | +14.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 22/28, 315 yd, 3 TD · 3 car, 2 yd | |
| 14.8 | +9.9 | 24% | 33% | 7% | 2% | 5 car, 62 yd, 1 TD · 1/2, 16 yd | |
| 14.3 | +1.3 | 68% | 68% | 17% | 0% | 14 car, 79 yd · 3/4, 34 yd | |
| 14.0 | +8.9 | 35% | 40% | 7% | 24% | 1 car, -4 yd · 2/2, 64 yd, 1 TD | |
| 13.3 | +0.5 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. | |
| 10.0 | −1.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 14/25, 179 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 8 yd | |
| 9.2 | +4.9 | 54% | 54% | 8% | 6% | 2/2, 12 yd, 1 TD | |
| 8.0 | +2.9 | 79% | 80% | 11% | 18% | 3/3, 50 yd | |
| 7.7 | +2.1 | 32% | 29% | 4% | 1% | 9 car, 34 yd · 1/1, 33 yd | |
| 7.1 | −1.4 | 67% | 71% | 21% | 51% | 2/5, 51 yd | |
| 5.7 | −3.2 | 100% | 96% | 25% | 24% | 3/6, 27 yd | |
| 5.6 | −0.2 | 30% | 33% | 7% | 5% | 6 car, 21 yd · 2/2, 15 yd | |
| 4.7 | +0.7 | 76% | 67% | 11% | 5% | 3/3, 17 yd | |
| 2.3 | −0.5 | 25% | 17% | 4% | 1% | 2 car, 9 yd · 1/1, 4 yd | |
| 2.2 | −0.3 | 40% | 43% | 8% | 10% | 1/2, 12 yd | |
| 2.1 | +0.7 | 29% | 23% | 4% | 5% | 1/1, 11 yd | |
| 1.9 | −2.0 | 68% | 73% | 11% | 12% | 1/3, 9 yd | |
| 1.7 | −0.8 | 40% | 39% | 8% | 9% | 1/2, 7 yd | |
| 1.3 | −0.9 | 23% | 7% | 4% | 1% | 1/1, 3 yd | |
| 0.6 | −0.8 | 21% | 21% | 0% | — | 2 car, 6 yd | |
| 0.0 | −0.8 | 18% | 14% | 4% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
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 Jets 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.
(5:09) 5-M.White pass deep left to 17-G.Wilson for 54 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q2 5:09 · Jets · 1st & 10 at NYJ 46 · gained 54 · +4.62 EP · +15.9% win probability
145 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: 157 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, manual charting on 131. 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.
7 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was NYJ moving 79 yards from the NYJ 21 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; NYJ 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.
157 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
157 plays
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Play action, 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: Bears at Jets, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trevor Siemian | 14/25 | 179 | 1 | 1 | 2 | −7.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 14 | 79 | 5.6 | 0 | +3.1 |
| Darrynton Evans | 9 | 34 | 3.8 | 0 | +2.1 |
| Trevor Siemian | 4 | 8 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase Claypool | 2 | 5 | 51 | 0 | 21% | −1.4 |
| David Montgomery | 3 | 4 | 34 | 0 | 17% | +1.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Sanborn | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeAndre Houston-Carson | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Morrow |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike White | 22/28 | 315 | 3 | 0 | 1 | +17.5 |
| Braden Mann | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2.9 |
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_12_CHI_NYJ
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Jets closed -8.5 and covered, winning by 21.
Total closed 36.5; the game landed 41 — over by 4.5.
Conditions and crew
| Velus Jones | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.8 |
| Darrynton Evans | 1 | 1 | 33 | 0 | 4% | +2.6 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 6 | 27 | 0 | 25% | −6.1 |
| Byron Pringle | 2 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 8% | +3.3 |
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 8% | −0.5 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 8% | −1.8 |
| Trevon Wesco | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4% | −0.5 |
| Khari Blasingame | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| 2 |
| 5 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kindle Vildor | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mike Pennel | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Matthew Adams | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Armon Watts | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zonovan Knight | 14 | 69 | 4.9 | 0 | +0.2 |
| Ty Johnson | 5 | 62 | 12.4 | 1 | +3.8 |
| Michael Carter | 6 | 21 | 3.5 | 0 | −1.2 |
| Braxton Berrios | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Mike White | 3 | 2 | 0.7 | 0 | −0.7 |
| Garrett Wilson | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | −0.8 |
| Elijah Moore | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 | −0.8 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garrett Wilson | 5 | 8 | 95 | 2 | 29% | +8.1 |
| Elijah Moore | 2 | 2 | 64 | 1 | 7% | +6.6 |
| Tyler Conklin | 3 | 3 | 50 | 0 | 11% | +3.5 |
| Zonovan Knight | 3 | 3 | 34 | 0 | 11% | +1.5 |
| C.J. Uzomah | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 11% | +1.2 |
| Ty Johnson | 1 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 7% | −0.4 |
| Michael Carter | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 7% | +0.4 |
| Denzel Mims | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 4% | +0.3 |
| Corey Davis | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 11% | −1.9 |
| Braxton Berrios | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Mosley | 3 | 7 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| D.J. Reed | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lamarcus Joyner | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Quincy Williams | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kwon Alexander | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordan Whitehead | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nathan Shepherd | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| John Franklin-Myers | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Ahmad Gardner | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Solomon Thomas | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |