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 11:25 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 17 · Sun, Jan 1, 2023 · Ford Field
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 17
It turned at Q1 7:38, 4th and 4, on Jared Goff — 14.5 win-probability points to the Lions on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Detroit Lions 41–10 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q1 7:38, Lions +14.5% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 7:38 · 4th and 4
Jared Goff
Lions
(7:38) (Shotgun) 16-J.Goff pass incomplete deep middle to 4-D.Chark [91-D.Robinson]. PENALTY on CHI-6-K.Gordon, Defensive Pass Interference, 34 yards, enforced at CHI 35 - No Play.
14.5
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
Lions won this one — +0.16 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.65 expected points per dropback.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Lions won this one — +0.19 expected points per snap, against Bears at -0.34 expected points per snap.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Lions won this one — 52% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 36% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Lions won this one — 9 chunk plays, against Bears at 4 chunk plays.
Lionsthe 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 3.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 13 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(7:38) (Shotgun) 16-J.Goff pass incomplete deep middle to 4-D.Chark [91-D.Robinson]. PENALTY on CHI-6-K.Gordon, Defensive Pass Interference, 34 yards, enforced at CHI 35 - No Play.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
D'Andre Swift's 17-yard rushing touchdown with 14:32 left in the 2nd put Detroit Lions ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 5 scores that followed.
9 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryLions
Lions ahead 9–0 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, ±0.65 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 50 snaps at a 64% dropback rate against Lions’s 67 at 46%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Lions 7.
Lions won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.19 expected points added per play vs -0.34.
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.
DET's play-action rate, 48.4%, was the highest of the 30 team-games charted in week 17 — 16.2 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 8.5 points. · +2.4σ from their own normal
DET's sack or hit rate, 31.3%, was the highest of the 30 team-games charted in week 17 — 0.2 points clear of the next team along.
32 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.6 points. · +1.9σ from their own normal
DET's early-down pass rate turned over: 71.7% in week 16 against 40.7% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 3.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
54 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.1 points. · −1.4σ from their own normal
DET's fourth-and-short go rate turned over: 75.0% in week 16 against 25.0% here — they went for it then and took the kick now, a turn of 2.0 of their own weekly swings across the two.
4 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 14 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 24.5 points. · −1.1σ from their own normal
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 16 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-5.9 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +8.0 vs their -13.9 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+1.20× that swing) · 50 snaps
Lions-5.9 ptsinside their normal wobble · −4.0 vs their -1.8 pts, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 67 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 23% to 77%
Tendencies room →Bears52.8%inside their normal wobble · +8.0 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+0.97× that swing) · 36 early downs
Lions40.7%leaned — ran early · −12.4 vs their 53.1%, and they swing ±9.1 week to week (−1.35× that swing) · 54 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 52%
Tendencies room →Bears21.9%right on their number · −2.7 vs their 24.5%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−0.30× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Lions48.4%off script — faked the run · +20.7 vs their 27.7%, and they swing ±8.5 week to week (+2.43× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -12% to 113%
Fourth Down room →Bears25.0%inside their normal wobble · −12.5 vs their 37.5%, and they swing ±18.7 week to week (−0.67× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Lions25.0%leaned — took the kick · −25.7 vs their 50.7%, and they swing ±24.5 week to week (−1.05× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -16% to 63%
Tendencies room →Bears38.7%leaned — sent pressure · +19.0 vs their 19.7%, and they swing ±13.6 week to week (+1.40× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Lions34.4%right on their number · +1.3 vs their 33.1%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.12× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 37%
Tendencies room →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
Lions31.3%leaned — got home · +16.6 vs their 14.6%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+1.93× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
DET's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 48.4%, 20.7 points above their season mean of 27.7% and 2.4 times their own 8.5-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 6 inactive
Inactive · 6
Who moved the needle
Passing · DET
21/29, 255 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
5.8 expected points added · -1.1% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
7/21, 75 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-27.0 expected points added · -28.6% completion over expected
Receiving · DET
4/5 for 62 yds, 0 TD
17% of team targets · 4.5 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.
D'Andre Swift banked 13.9 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 27.7 | +13.9 | 35% | 42% | 14% | 0% | 11 car, 78 yd, 1 TD · 4/4, 39 yd, 1 TD |
| Jamaal WilliamsRB · Committee Back | 22.7 | +4.7 | 46% | 29% | 3% | 0% | 22 car, 144 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 13 yd |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 22.4 | +6.6 | 90% | — | 0% | — | 21/29, 255 yd, 3 TD · 1 car, 2 yd |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 16.3 | +5.9 | 65% | 55% | 14% | 5% | 3/4, 13 yd, 2 TD |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 16.2 | −2.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 7/21, 75 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 10 car, 132 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 10.7 | +5.2 | 88% | 88% | 17% | 13% | 2/3, 27 yd, 1 TD |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 10.2 | +1.0 | 70% | 77% | 17% | 29% | 4/5, 62 yd |
| D.J. CharkWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.6 | −0.7 | 68% | 74% | 14% | 33% | 2/4, 56 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.4 | +1.2 | 30% | 39% | 10% | 11% | 1 car, 4 yd · 3/3, 40 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 5.6 | −1.7 | 54% | 59% | 17% | 0% | 6 car, 24 yd · 2/3, 12 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.0 | −0.7 | 62% | 59% | 17% | 14% | 2/3, 20 yd |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.0 | −2.7 | 25% | 29% | 10% | 14% | 1 car, 40 yd · 0/3, 0 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 3.1 | +0.6 | 38% | 34% | 0% | — | 5 car, 31 yd |
| N'Keal HarryTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | +0.9 | 48% | 53% | 6% | 6% | 1/1, 16 yd |
| James MitchellTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.5 | +0.5 | 28% | 23% | 3% | 6% | 1/1, 15 yd |
| Shane ZylstraTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | −1.6 | 39% | 42% | 7% | 2% | 1/2, 7 yd |
| Jason CabindaRB | 1.5 | −0.3 | 21% | 16% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| Josh ReynoldsWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | −0.7 | 44% | 42% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 1.3 | −1.0 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Trestan EbnerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Ryan GriffinTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 15% | 16% | 6% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Trevon WescoTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 17% | 9% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Byron PringleWR · Featured Receiver | 0.0 | −7.2 | 75% | 72% | 22% | 35% | 0/4, 0 yd |
| Chase ClaypoolWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.3 | 37% | 47% | 6% | 10% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Dante PettisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 27% | 34% | 6% | 3% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Nate SudfeldQB | -0.3 | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 2 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 Lions 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.
(5:21) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields scrambles up the middle to DET 9 for 60 yards (31-K.Joseph).
Q1 5:21 · Bears · 3rd & 4 at CHI 31 · gained 60 · +4.88 EP · +18.3% win probability
155 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: 166 plays across 24 drives, personnel groupings on 166 snaps, manual charting on 138. 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 24 drives ended in points. The longest march was DET moving 92 yards from the DET 8 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; DET 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.
166 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
166 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears6
Lions0Bears7Lions0Bears7Lions6Bears7Lions7How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
From outside the pocket.
Bears10Lions7Bears10Lions13Bears10Lions14Bears10Lions20Bears10Lions21Bears10Lions24Bears10Lions30Bears10Lions31Bears10Lions37Bears10Lions38Bears10Lions41Win 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 Lions, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 7/21 | 75 | 1 | 1 | 7 | −27.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 10 | 132 | 13.2 | 0 | +9.2 |
| Khalil Herbert | 5 | 31 | 6.2 | 0 | +0.5 |
| David Montgomery |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 3 | 27 | 1 | 17% | +1.6 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 2 | 3 | 20 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Thomas | 5 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 21/29 | 255 | 3 | 0 | 1 | +5.8 |
| 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_17_CHI_DET
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Lions closed -4.5 and covered, winning by 31.
Total closed 52.5; the game landed 51 — under by 1.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 6 |
| 24 |
| 4.0 |
| 0 |
| −0.3 |
| Velus Jones | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | +0.8 |
| 17% |
| −0.1 |
| N'Keal Harry | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 6% | +0.9 |
| David Montgomery | 2 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 17% | −0.9 |
| Velus Jones | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −0.8 |
| Byron Pringle | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 22% | −3.5 |
| Dante Pettis | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −1.4 |
| Chase Claypool | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −0.5 |
| Ryan Griffin | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −3.7 |
| 5 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| DeAndre Houston-Carson | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Matthew Adams | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Blackwell | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nicholas Morrow | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Harrison Hand | 0 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaylon Jones | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamaal Williams | 22 | 144 | 6.5 | 1 | +1.4 |
| D'Andre Swift | 11 | 78 | 7.1 | 1 | +2.8 |
| Jameson Williams | 1 | 40 | 40.0 | 0 | +2.4 |
| Kalif Raymond | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.6 |
| Jared Goff | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Nate Sudfeld | 3 | -3 | -1.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 4 | 5 | 62 | 0 | 17% | +4.5 |
| D.J. Chark | 2 | 4 | 56 | 0 | 14% | +1.4 |
| Kalif Raymond | 3 | 3 | 40 | 0 | 10% | +2.4 |
| D'Andre Swift | 4 | 4 | 39 | 1 | 14% | +2.6 |
| James Mitchell | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 3% | +1.1 |
| Jamaal Williams | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 3% | +0.8 |
| Brock Wright | 3 | 4 | 13 | 2 | 14% | −1.1 |
| Shane Zylstra | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7% | −2.5 |
| Josh Reynolds | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3% | −0.1 |
| Jason Cabinda | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3% | +0.4 |
| Jameson Williams | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 10% | −1.7 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Anzalone | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ifeatu Melifonwu | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 |
| Kerby Joseph | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Josh Paschal | 4 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jerry Jacobs | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aidan Hutchinson | 1 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 |
| Malcolm Rodriguez | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| James Houston | 3 | 0 | 3.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alim McNeill | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Cominsky | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
