The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:02 · 2nd and 10
Sam Ehlinger
Texans
(:02) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass incomplete deep middle (1-T.Smith).
26.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
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 8:35 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2022 Week 18 · Sun, Jan 8, 2023 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2022 Week 18
It turned at Q4 0:02, 2nd and 10, on Sam Ehlinger — 26.4 win-probability points to the Texans on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Houston Texans 32–31 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:02, Texans +26.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:02 · 2nd and 10
Sam Ehlinger
Texans
(:02) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass incomplete deep middle (1-T.Smith).
26.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Colts owned this one and still lost it — +0.09 expected points per carry, against Texans at -0.53 expected points per carry.
Coltsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Texans won this one — +0.17 expected points per dropback, against Colts at -0.21 expected points per dropback.
Texansthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Colts owned this one and still lost it — 41% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Texans at 35% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Coltsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Colts owned this one and still lost it — 9 chunk plays, against Texans at 7 chunk plays.
Coltsthe 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 2.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 12 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Colts.
(:02) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass incomplete deep middle (1-T.Smith).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jordan Akins's 28-yard touchdown catch with 0:58 left in the 4th put Houston Texans ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
10 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Colts ahead 6–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Texans, 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, ±0.53 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: Texans ran 65 snaps at a 66% dropback rate against Colts’s 70 at 59%. Red-zone trips: Texans 4, Colts 5.
Texans won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.07 expected points added per play vs -0.08.
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.
IND's fourth-and-short go rate, 75.0%, was the highest of the 22 team-games charted in week 18 — 8.3 points clear of the next team along.
4 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 14 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 34.8 points. · +1.1σ 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 -21 pts to 16 pts
Over Expected room →right on their number · −1.6 vs their -2.4 pts, and they swing ±7.4 week to week (−0.22× that swing) · 64 snaps
right on their number · −2.6 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−0.39× that swing) · 70 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 30% to 86%
Tendencies room →right on their number · +0.1 vs their 58.2%, and they swing ±11.0 week to week (+0.01× that swing) · 48 early downs
inside their normal wobble · −6.9 vs their 56.9%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.73× that swing) · 54 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 46%
Tendencies room →right on their number · −3.7 vs their 25.1%, and they swing ±7.6 week to week (−0.49× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · +8.1 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (+0.87× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -53% to 125%
Fourth Down room →Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 31.3%.
leaned — went for it · +38.7 vs their 36.3%, and they swing ±34.8 week to week (+1.11× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -10% to 46%
Tendencies room →right on their number · +1.3 vs their 18.2%, and they swing ±10.9 week to week (+0.12× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · +6.1 vs their 15.3%, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+0.93× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 35%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · −4.5 vs their 14.3%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.55× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
right on their number · −0.0 vs their 14.0%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−0.00× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
IND's fourth-and-short go rate was the night's one real departure: 75.0%, 38.7 points above their season mean of 36.3% and 1.1 times their own 34.8-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.
Houston Texans
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · HOU
22/38, 298 yds, 3 TD, 2 INT
7.3 expected points added · -1.9% completion over expected
Passing · IND
23/35, 209 yds, 2 TD, 2 INT
-13.0 expected points added · +0.2% completion over expected
Receiving · HOU
3/4 for 83 yds, 0 TD
11% of team targets · 5.5 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.
Brandin Cooks banked 11.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan AkinsTE · Featured Receiver | 25.0 | +10.5 | 54% | 72% | 21% | 17% | 4/8, 70 yd, 2 TD |
| Davis MillsQB · Starter QB | 22.5 | +6.0 | 91% | — | 0% | — | 22/38, 298 yd, 3 TD, 2 INT · 1 car, 6 yd |
| Brandin CooksWR · Rotational Receiver | 21.6 | +11.1 | 91% | 91% | 16% | 34% | 5/6, 106 yd, 1 TD |
| Zack MossRB · Committee Back | 21.1 | +3.8 | 58% | 46% | 9% | 0% | 18 car, 114 yd, 1 TD · 3/3, 7 yd |
| Deon JacksonRB · Committee Back | 17.0 | +2.5 | 41% | 54% | 24% | 5% | 8 car, 35 yd · 6/8, 75 yd |
| Sam EhlingerQB · Starter QB | 14.5 | −9.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/35, 209 yd, 2 TD, 2 INT · 5 car, 21 yd |
| Parris CampbellWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.8 | −1.2 | 92% | 88% | 26% | 39% | 1 car, 26 yd · 6/9, 42 yd |
| Michael PittmanWR · Rotational Receiver | 12.0 | −1.0 | 99% | 100% | 15% | 19% | 1 car, 0 yd · 3/5, 30 yd, 1 TD |
| Teagan QuitorianoTE · Rotational Receiver | 11.3 | +4.8 | 66% | 49% | 11% | 17% | 3/4, 83 yd |
| Dare OgunbowaleRB · Committee Back | 8.8 | −5.1 | 62% | 63% | 16% | 0% | 11 car, 33 yd · 5/6, 5 yd |
| Mo Alie-CoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 7.4 | +4.1 | 60% | 51% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 4 yd, 1 TD |
| Alec PierceWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.2 | −0.8 | 64% | 73% | 12% | 22% | 3/4, 42 yd |
| Amari RodgersWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.2 | −0.3 | 62% | 70% | 11% | 6% | 3/4, 22 yd |
| Chris MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.0 | −5.2 | 91% | 95% | 16% | 30% | 1 car, -2 yd · 2/6, 22 yd |
| Jelani WoodsTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.9 | −6.8 | 52% | 59% | 12% | 13% | 1/4, 9 yd |
| Jeff DriskelQB | 1.2 | −1.6 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Rex BurkheadRB | 1.1 | −1.5 | 15% | 23% | 5% | 2% | 1/2, 1 yd |
| Royce FreemanRB | 0.7 | −3.9 | 23% | 14% | 3% | 0% | 7 car, 15 yd · 1/1, 2 yd |
| Troy HairstonRB | 0.0 | −1.1 | 14% | 7% | 3% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Keke CouteeWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
2 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 Colts attack right, the Texans 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.
(:02) (Shotgun) 4-S.Ehlinger pass incomplete deep middle (1-T.Smith).
Q4 0:02 · Colts · 2nd & 10 at IND 46 · gained nothing · -0.24 EP · −38.0% win probability
169 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: 183 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 183 snaps, manual charting on 149. 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.
8 of 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was HOU moving 83 yards from the HOU 17 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND attacks right, HOU 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.
183 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
183 plays
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
How the play was built
No huddle, a man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, the ball was not catchable.
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: Texans at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis Mills | 22/38 | 298 | 3 | 2 | 1 | +7.3 |
| Jeff Driskel | 2/2 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dare Ogunbowale | 11 | 33 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.9 |
| Royce Freeman | 7 | 15 | 2.1 | 0 | −8.8 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandin Cooks | 5 | 6 | 106 | 1 | 16% | +11.5 |
| Teagan Quitoriano | 3 | 4 | 83 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Harris | 6 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jonathan Owens | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tavierre Thomas |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sam Ehlinger | 23/35 | 209 | 2 | 2 | 2 | −13.0 |
| 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_18_HOU_IND
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Colts closed -3 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 38; the game landed 63 — over by 25.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Jeff Driskel | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Davis Mills | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Chris Moore | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | −1.0 |
| 11% |
| +5.5 |
| Jordan Akins | 4 | 8 | 70 | 2 | 21% | +3.0 |
| Amari Rodgers | 3 | 4 | 22 | 0 | 11% | −0.8 |
| Chris Moore | 2 | 6 | 22 | 0 | 16% | −3.2 |
| Dare Ogunbowale | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 16% | −1.9 |
| Royce Freeman | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3% | −0.5 |
| Rex Burkhead | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5% | −2.7 |
| Troy Hairston | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.6 |
| 6 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Jalen Pitre | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| M.J. Stewart | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Desmond King | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Kirksey | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Blake Cashman | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roy Lopez | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jake Hansen | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zack Moss | 18 | 114 | 6.3 | 1 | +3.5 |
| Deon Jackson | 8 | 35 | 4.4 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Parris Campbell | 1 | 26 | 26.0 | 0 | +1.7 |
| Sam Ehlinger | 5 | 21 | 4.2 | 0 | +3.5 |
| Michael Pittman | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deon Jackson | 6 | 8 | 75 | 0 | 24% | −3.0 |
| Parris Campbell | 6 | 9 | 42 | 0 | 26% | −7.2 |
| Alec Pierce | 3 | 4 | 42 | 0 | 12% | +2.4 |
| Michael Pittman | 3 | 5 | 30 | 1 | 15% | +0.6 |
| Jelani Woods | 1 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 12% | −4.0 |
| Zack Moss | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 9% | −1.6 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3% | +2.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E.J. Speed | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Julian Blackmon | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rodney McLeod | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Zaire Franklin | 3 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandon Facyson | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Bobby Okereke | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeForest Buckner | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dayo Odeyingbo | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rodney Thomas | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Dallis Flowers | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |