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 11:23 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 15 · Sun, Dec 18, 2022 · SoFi Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 15
It turned at Q4 0:32, 2nd and 4, on Mike Williams — 20.6 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 17–14 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:32, Chargers +20.6% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:32 · 2nd and 4
Mike Williams
Chargers
(:32) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 81-M.Williams to TEN 20 for 35 yards (32-G.Mabin).
20.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Staying on schedule
Chargers won this one — 52% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Titans at 43% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Titans owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 2 trips, against Chargers at 2 touchdowns on 3 trips.
Titansthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Titans owned this one and still lost it — 1 giveaway, against Chargers at 2 giveaways.
Titansthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Titans owned this one and still lost it — 6 chunk plays, against Chargers at 5 chunk plays.
Titansthe 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 1.5 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 7 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Titans.
(:32) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 81-M.Williams to TEN 20 for 35 yards (32-G.Mabin).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Cameron Dicker's 43-yard field goal with 0:08 left in the 4th put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Cameron Dicker43-yd field goal43-yard field goalholder J.Scott · snap J.HarrisLead never changed again+314–175 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Titanscategory by categoryChargers
Chargers ahead 6–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Titans, 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, ±0.35 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: Titans ran 56 snaps at a 57% dropback rate against Chargers’s 67 at 64%. Red-zone trips: Titans 2, Chargers 3.
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.
2 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.
TEN's sack or hit rate turned over: 2.3% in week 14 against 18.6% here — they stayed blocked then and got home now, a turn of 2.0 of their own weekly swings across the two.
43 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.0 points. · +0.6σ from their own normal
LAC's pass rate over expected turned over: +14.8 pts in week 14 against +1.0 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.
67 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.8 points. · −0.6σ 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 -36 pts to 21 pts
Over Expected room →Titans-12.3 ptsright on their number · −1.6 vs their -10.7 pts, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (−0.16× that swing) · 56 snaps
Chargers1.0 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.2 vs their 4.3 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−0.56× that swing) · 67 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 15% to 94%
Tendencies room →Titans53.3%inside their normal wobble · +7.0 vs their 46.4%, and they swing ±11.7 week to week (+0.60× that swing) · 45 early downs
Chargers61.5%right on their number · −2.2 vs their 63.7%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (−0.19× that swing) · 52 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 57%
Tendencies room →Titans25.0%right on their number · −0.0 vs their 25.0%, and they swing ±12.5 week to week (−0.00× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Chargers27.9%right on their number · +1.2 vs their 26.7%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+0.14× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -42% to 84%
Fourth Down room →Titans—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 20.8%.
Chargers33.3%right on their number · +2.9 vs their 30.4%, and they swing ±18.2 week to week (+0.16× that swing) · 6 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 60%
Tendencies room →Titans27.9%inside their normal wobble · +7.0 vs their 20.9%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.74× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Chargers34.4%right on their number · +3.1 vs their 31.3%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.28× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 34%
Tendencies room →Titans18.6%inside their normal wobble · +4.7 vs their 13.9%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+0.59× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Chargers15.6%right on their number · +2.2 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (+0.31× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Nothing either side did tonight left its own normal range. The widest departure was TEN's blitz rate sent, 27.9% against a season mean of 20.9% — and TEN swings 9.4 points week to week, so that is a Sunday, not a plan.
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.
Tennessee Titans
48 dressed · 7 inactive
Inactive · 7
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 4 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 4
Who moved the needle
Passing · LAC
28/42, 313 yds, 0 TD, 2 INT
-7.5 expected points added · +2.7% completion over expected
Passing · TEN
15/22, 165 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-6.4 expected points added · -4.5% 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.
Derrick Henry banked 4.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick HenryRB · Bell Cow Back | 26.3 | +4.1 | 71% | 53% | 15% | 4% | 21 car, 104 yd, 1 TD · 4/4, 59 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Featured Receiver | 16.6 | +1.6 | 89% | 93% | 24% | 26% | 8/9, 86 yd |
| Austin EkelerRB · Committee Back | 15.0 | +2.6 | 69% | 64% | 8% | 0% | 12 car, 58 yd, 1 TD · 2/3, 12 yd |
| Mike WilliamsWR · Featured Receiver | 10.7 | −3.4 | 89% | 91% | 21% | 40% | 4/8, 67 yd |
| Ryan TannehillQB · Starter QB | 10.7 | −4.3 | 84% | — | 0% | — | 15/22, 165 yd, 1 INT · 3 car, 1 yd, 1 TD |
| Joshua KelleyRB | 10.1 | −5.3 | 35% | 31% | 5% | 4% | 10 car, 24 yd, 1 TD · 1/2, 7 yd |
| Chigoziem OkonkwoTE | 10.0 | +1.3 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. |
| Josh PalmerWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.9 | +2.5 | 65% | 64% | 13% | 11% | 5/5, 49 yd |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 8.7 | −5.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 28/42, 313 yd, 2 INT · 1 car, 2 yd |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.2 | −0.2 | 62% | 67% | 16% | 8% | 4/6, 42 yd |
| Donald ParhamTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.5 | +1.6 | 31% | 29% | 8% | 6% | 3/3, 35 yd |
| Austin HooperTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.3 | −1.2 | 48% | 53% | 15% | 21% | 2/4, 33 yd |
| Chris ConleyWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.9 | +0.6 | 50% | 59% | 12% | 10% | 3/3, 19 yd |
| Hassan HaskinsRB | 3.5 | +0.1 | 19% | 34% | 8% | 0% | 1 car, 8 yd · 2/2, 7 yd |
| Robert WoodsWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | −4.5 | 81% | 94% | 15% | 12% | 2/4, 12 yd |
| Malik WillisQB | 1.6 | −0.1 | 16% | — | 0% | — | 3/4, 20 yd · 1 car, 8 yd |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | −1.8 | 23% | 16% | 5% | 6% | 1 car, -10 yd · 1/2, 15 yd |
| Racey McMathWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.1 | −1.7 | 23% | 31% | 8% | 20% | 1/2, 1 yd |
| Julius ChestnutRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Kevin RaderTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 13% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Nick Westbrook-IkhineWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −4.0 | 82% | 88% | 8% | 13% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Mason KinseyWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 3 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 Chargers attack right, the Titans 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.
(:32) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep right to 81-M.Williams to TEN 20 for 35 yards (32-G.Mabin).
Q4 0:32 · Chargers · 2nd & 4 at LAC 45 · gained 35 · +1.78 EP · +16.9% win probability
163 snaps placed · 14 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 177 plays across 25 drives, personnel groupings on 177 snaps, manual charting on 151. 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.
5 of 25 drives ended in points. The longest march was TEN moving 74 yards from the TEN 26 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LAC attacks right, TEN 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.
177 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
177 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Titans0
Chargers6Titans0Chargers7Titans6Chargers7Titans7Chargers7How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, it should have been intercepted, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Titans7Chargers13Titans7Chargers14How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A quarterback sneak, a man in motion.
Titans13Chargers14Titans14Chargers14How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
Titans14Chargers17Win 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: Titans at Chargers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Tannehill | 15/22 | 165 | 0 | 1 | 4 | −6.4 |
| Malik Willis | 3/4 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick Henry | 21 | 104 | 5.0 | 1 | +1.6 |
| Malik Willis | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | +0.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick Henry | 4 | 4 | 59 | 0 | 15% | +2.9 |
| Chigoziem Okonkwo | 4 | 5 | 54 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greg Mabin | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeffery Simmons | 3 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dylan Cole |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 28/42 | 313 | 0 | 2 | 3 | −7.5 |
| 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_15_TEN_LAC
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Chargers closed -3 and it landed exactly on the number — a push.
Total closed 46.5; the game landed 31 — under by 15.5.
Conditions and crew
| Hassan Haskins | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | +0.9 |
| Chigoziem Okonkwo | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Ryan Tannehill | 3 | 1 | 0.3 | 1 | +0.7 |
| 19% |
| +0.6 |
| Austin Hooper | 2 | 4 | 33 | 0 | 15% | +0.9 |
| Chris Conley | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 12% | +1.8 |
| Robert Woods | 2 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 15% | −1.3 |
| Hassan Haskins | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 8% | −1.0 |
| Racey McMath | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8% | −3.4 |
| Nick Westbrook-Ikhine | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8% | −1.1 |
| 4 |
| 1 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| DeMarcus Walker | 4 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Monty Rice | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jack Gibbens | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Byard | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| John Reid | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Adams | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roger McCreary | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Austin Ekeler | 12 | 58 | 4.8 | 1 | +3.2 |
| Joshua Kelley | 10 | 24 | 2.4 | 1 | −0.4 |
| Justin Herbert | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | +2.1 |
| DeAndre Carter | 1 | -10 | -10.0 | 0 | −1.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keenan Allen | 8 | 9 | 86 | 0 | 24% | +4.7 |
| Mike Williams | 4 | 8 | 67 | 0 | 21% | −7.3 |
| Josh Palmer | 5 | 5 | 49 | 0 | 13% | +0.8 |
| Gerald Everett | 4 | 6 | 42 | 0 | 16% | +0.6 |
| Donald Parham | 3 | 3 | 35 | 0 | 8% | +1.9 |
| DeAndre Carter | 1 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 5% | +0.2 |
| Austin Ekeler | 2 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 8% | −0.9 |
| Joshua Kelley | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 5% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drue Tranquill | 6 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alohi Gilman | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Murray | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Breiden Fehoko | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kyle Van Noy | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Joseph | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nasir Adderley | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Ja'Sir Taylor | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asante Samuel | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
