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 6:42 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 13 · Sun, Dec 4, 2022 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 13
It turned at Q4 2:57, 1st and 10, on Jaire Alexander — 21.6 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 28–19. Biggest swing: Q4 2:57, Packers +21.6% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 2:57 · 1st and 10
Jaire Alexander
Packers
(2:57) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left intended for 19-E.St. Brown INTERCEPTED by 23-J.Alexander at GB 28. 23-J.Alexander to GB 32 for 4 yards (19-E.St. Brown).
21.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Packers won this one — no giveaways, against Bears at 3 giveaways.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Bears owned this one and still lost it — +0.40 expected points per carry, against Packers at +0.23 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Packers won this one — +0.14 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.08 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 6 of 11 on third down, against Packers at 6 of 13 on third down.
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 13.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 27 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(2:57) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left intended for 19-E.St. Brown INTERCEPTED by 23-J.Alexander at GB 28. 23-J.Alexander to GB 32 for 4 yards (19-E.St. Brown).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Mason Crosby's 32-yard field goal with 4:53 left in the 4th put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 1 score that followed.
Mason Crosby32-yd field goal32-yard field goalholder P.O'Donnell · snap J.CocoLead never changed again+320–199 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Packerscategory by categoryBears
Deadlocked at 3–3 categories. Biggest gap to Packers, in 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, ±0.40 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: Packers ran 62 snaps at a 53% dropback rate against Bears’s 49 at 57%. Red-zone trips: Packers 5, Bears 3.
Bears outgained Packers 410-361 but lost the turnover battle 3-0. That was the game.
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.
1 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor in this game, which is under the three this column needs before it will draw the rule. The readings themselves stand.
CHI's sack or hit rate, 0.0%, was the lowest of the 30 team-games charted in week 13 — 2.8 points clear of the next team along.
33 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 3.4 points. · −2.4σ 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 19 pts
Over Expected room →Packers-11.5 ptsinside their normal wobble · −8.1 vs their -3.4 pts, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−0.94× that swing) · 61 snaps
Bears-6.4 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +7.5 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+1.12× that swing) · 49 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 84%
Tendencies room →Packers45.7%inside their normal wobble · −7.3 vs their 53.0%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (−0.59× that swing) · 46 early downs
Bears55.3%leaned — passed early · +10.4 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+1.28× that swing) · 38 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 54%
Tendencies room →Packers25.0%right on their number · −1.8 vs their 26.8%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (−0.17× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Bears25.0%right on their number · +0.5 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (+0.05× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -18% to 107%
Fourth Down room →Packers20.0%inside their normal wobble · −24.3 vs their 44.3%, and they swing ±24.4 week to week (−1.00× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 37.5%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -15% to 54%
Tendencies room →Packers17.9%right on their number · −4.9 vs their 22.8%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (−0.41× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Bears15.6%right on their number · −4.1 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (−0.30× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 37%
Tendencies room →Packers10.7%inside their normal wobble · −6.0 vs their 16.7%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−0.75× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Bears0.0%off script — stayed blocked · −8.1 vs their 8.1%, and they swing ±3.4 week to week (−2.40× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
CHI's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 0.0%, 8.1 points below their season mean of 8.1% and 2.4 times their own 3.4-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.
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
20/25, 254 yds, 0 TD, 2 INT
4.4 expected points added · +14.5% completion over expected
Passing · GB
18/31, 182 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
4.6 expected points added · -3.1% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
3/4 for 85 yds, 0 TD
16% of team targets · 0.8 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.
Christian Watson banked 9.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian WatsonWR · Featured Receiver | 24.4 | +9.4 | 92% | 94% | 23% | 48% | 1 car, 46 yd, 1 TD · 3/7, 48 yd, 1 TD |
| A.J. DillonRB · Committee Back | 20.9 | +8.2 | 68% | 73% | 10% | 2% | 18 car, 93 yd, 1 TD · 3/3, 26 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 19.3 | +7.5 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 20/25, 254 yd, 2 INT · 6 car, 71 yd, 1 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 16.7 | +1.6 | 77% | 71% | 20% | 2% | 14 car, 61 yd, 1 TD · 4/5, 6 yd |
| Aaron RodgersQB · Starter QB | 13.7 | −5.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 18/31, 182 yd, 1 TD · 3 car, 4 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Alpha Receiver | 13.2 | +2.5 | 100% | 100% | 28% | 23% | 6/7, 72 yd |
| Allen LazardWR · Featured Receiver | 11.7 | +1.8 | 94% | 97% | 20% | 24% | 5/6, 67 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.6 | +4.7 | 58% | 71% | 16% | 33% | 1 car, 1 yd · 3/4, 85 yd |
| Aaron JonesRB · Committee Back | 10.0 | −3.1 | 38% | 33% | 17% | 0% | 9 car, 26 yd · 5/5, 24 yd |
| N'Keal HarryTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.9 | +3.5 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Chase ClaypoolWR · Featured Receiver | 5.8 | −2.8 | 63% | 79% | 24% | 10% | 5/6, 28 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.4 | −1.4 | 65% | 75% | 8% | 14% | 1/2, 14 yd |
| Darrynton EvansRB | 2.1 | +0.4 | 25% | 29% | 0% | — | 3 car, 21 yd |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | −2.7 | 52% | 58% | 7% | 6% | 1/2, 10 yd |
| Marcedes LewisTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | −0.8 | 42% | 33% | 3% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Samori ToureWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | +0.3 | 18% | 30% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 7 yd |
| Patrick TaylorRB | 0.6 | +0.1 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Velus JonesRB | 0.1 | −0.7 | 23% | 7% | 0% | — | 1 car, 1 yd |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Josiah DeguaraTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 15% | 18% | 3% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Randall CobbWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −7.8 | 50% | 39% | 13% | 19% | 0/4, 0 yd |
3 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 Bears attack right, the Packers 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.
(2:57) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left intended for 19-E.St. Brown INTERCEPTED by 23-J.Alexander at GB 28. 23-J.Alexander to GB 32 for 4 yards (19-E.St. Brown).
Q4 2:57 · Bears · 1st & 10 at GB 43 · gained nothing · -4.07 EP · −28.8% win probability
144 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: 156 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 156 snaps, manual charting on 128. 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 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 82 yards from the GB 18 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, GB 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.
156 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
156 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Packers0
Bears3How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Packers0Bears9Packers0Bears10Packers3Bears10How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers3Bears16How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill.
Packers9Bears16Packers10Bears16Packers10Bears19Packers16Bears19Packers17Bears19Packers20Bears19How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Packers26Bears19Packers28Bears19Win 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: Packers at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Rodgers | 18/31 | 182 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +4.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.J. Dillon | 18 | 93 | 5.2 | 1 | +3.8 |
| Christian Watson | 1 | 46 | 46.0 | 1 | +4.8 |
| Aaron Jones |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen Lazard | 5 | 6 | 67 | 0 | 20% | +5.2 |
| Christian Watson | 3 | 7 | 48 | 1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De'Vondre Campbell | 6 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rasul Douglas | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaire Alexander |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 20/25 | 254 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +4.4 |
| 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_13_GB_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
Packers closed -4 and covered, winning by 9.
Total closed 45; the game landed 47 — over by 2.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 9 |
| 26 |
| 2.9 |
| 0 |
| −2.3 |
| Patrick Taylor | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 3 | 4 | 1.3 | 0 | +0.1 |
| 23% |
| +4.7 |
| A.J. Dillon | 3 | 3 | 26 | 0 | 10% | +1.9 |
| Aaron Jones | 5 | 5 | 24 | 0 | 17% | −0.1 |
| Robert Tonyan | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 7% | −1.3 |
| Samori Toure | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3% | +0.2 |
| Randall Cobb | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 13% | −4.3 |
| Josiah Deguara | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.8 |
| Marcedes Lewis | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | +0.4 |
| 5 |
| 1 |
| 0.0 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Quay Walker | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Adrian Amos | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Preston Smith | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dean Lowry | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Wilson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rudy Ford | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Justin Fields | 6 | 71 | 11.8 | 1 | +4.7 |
| David Montgomery | 14 | 61 | 4.4 | 1 | +1.9 |
| Darrynton Evans | 3 | 21 | 7.0 | 0 | +0.9 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Velus Jones | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 3 | 4 | 85 | 0 | 16% | +0.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 6 | 7 | 72 | 0 | 28% | +6.4 |
| N'Keal Harry | 1 | 1 | 49 | 0 | 4% | +3.3 |
| Chase Claypool | 5 | 6 | 28 | 0 | 24% | −6.0 |
| Dante Pettis | 1 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 8% | −3.3 |
| David Montgomery | 4 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 20% | −1.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Sanborn | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Jones | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeAndre Houston-Carson | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Morrow | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominique Robinson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Blackwell | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Matthew Adams | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Armon Watts | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
