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
2023 Week 2 · Sun, Sep 17, 2023 · Raymond James Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 2
It turned at Q4 2:12, 1st and 11, on Shaquil Barrett — 19.7 win-probability points to the Buccaneers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 27–17. Biggest swing: Q4 2:12, Buccaneers +19.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 2:12 · 1st and 11
Shaquil Barrett
Buccaneers
(2:12) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 24-K.Herbert INTERCEPTED by 7-S.Barrett at CHI 4. 7-S.Barrett for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
19.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Red zone
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 2 trips, against Buccaneers at 1 touchdown on 5 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Buccaneers won this one — no giveaways, against Bears at 3 giveaways.
Buccaneersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Buccaneers won this one — +0.23 expected points per snap, against Bears at -0.16 expected points per snap.
Buccaneersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Buccaneers won this one — +0.37 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.22 expected points per dropback.
Buccaneersthe 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 1.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 6 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(2:12) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 24-K.Herbert INTERCEPTED by 7-S.Barrett at CHI 4. 7-S.Barrett for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Chase McLaughlin's 25-yard field goal with 0:03 left in the 2nd put Tampa Bay Buccaneers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 3 scores that followed.
Chase McLaughlin25-yd field goal25-yard field goalholder J.Camarda · snap Z.TrinerLead never changed again+310–138 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryBuccaneers
Buccaneers ahead 8–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — 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, ±0.37 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 51 snaps at a 71% dropback rate against Buccaneers’s 66 at 58%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Buccaneers 5.
Buccaneers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.23 expected points added per play vs -0.16.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
11 of 11 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
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 -19 pts to 14 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-0.6 ptsinside their normal wobble · +4.5 vs their -5.1 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (+0.83× that swing) · 51 snaps
Buccaneers-7.3 ptsinside their normal wobble · −5.5 vs their -1.8 pts, and they swing ±6.0 week to week (−0.92× that swing) · 66 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 27% to 81%
Tendencies room →Bears65.8%leaned — passed early · +14.7 vs their 51.1%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+1.71× that swing) · 38 early downs
Buccaneers50.0%right on their number · −4.3 vs their 54.3%, and they swing ±10.6 week to week (−0.41× that swing) · 50 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 46%
Tendencies room →Bears22.2%right on their number · −1.0 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (−0.14× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Buccaneers36.8%leaned — faked the run · +14.1 vs their 22.8%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (+1.53× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -34% to 93%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 0 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 39.9%.
Buccaneers20.0%right on their number · −8.6 vs their 28.6%, and they swing ±24.5 week to week (−0.35× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 76%
Tendencies room →Bears15.8%inside their normal wobble · −5.5 vs their 21.3%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−0.53× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Buccaneers22.2%leaned — sat back · −17.0 vs their 39.2%, and they swing ±14.3 week to week (−1.19× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 33%
Tendencies room →Bears2.6%leaned — stayed blocked · −9.8 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−1.52× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Buccaneers25.0%leaned — got home · +11.8 vs their 13.2%, and they swing ±7.7 week to week (+1.53× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
CHI's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 65.8%, 14.7 points above their season mean of 51.1% and 1.7 times their own 8.6-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 · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Who moved the needle
Passing · TB
26/34, 317 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
13.3 expected points added · +15.6% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
16/29, 211 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT
-8.6 expected points added · -10.5% 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.
Mike Evans banked 15.9 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike EvansWR · Alpha Receiver | 29.1 | +15.9 | 61% | 71% | 25% | 44% | 6/8, 171 yd, 1 TD |
| Rachaad WhiteRB · Committee Back | 21.3 | +2.6 | 72% | 79% | 16% | 0% | 17 car, 73 yd, 1 TD · 5/5, 30 yd |
| Baker MayfieldQB · Starter QB | 18.4 | −2.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 26/34, 317 yd, 1 TD · 6 car, 17 yd |
| D.J. MooreWR · Alpha Receiver | 16.4 | +7.1 | 91% | 94% | 25% | 32% | 6/7, 104 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 14.7 | −0.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 16/29, 211 yd, 1 TD, 2 INT · 4 car, 3 yd, 1 TD |
| Chase ClaypoolWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.6 | −0.1 | 79% | 78% | 29% | 35% | 3/8, 36 yd, 1 TD |
| Chris GodwinWR · Alpha Receiver | 10.8 | −3.6 | 75% | 76% | 25% | 33% | 5/8, 58 yd |
| Cade OttonTE · Featured Receiver | 10.1 | +1.7 | 97% | 95% | 19% | 10% | 6/6, 41 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 7.8 | −1.2 | 68% | 67% | 21% | 28% | 4/6, 38 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB · Committee Back | 6.8 | −1.5 | 60% | 53% | 11% | 0% | 7 car, 35 yd · 1/3, 23 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 6.2 | +1.3 | 42% | 47% | 7% | 0% | 4 car, 32 yd · 2/2, 10 yd |
| Trey PalmerWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.0 | −0.8 | 49% | 39% | 6% | 15% | 1/2, 20 yd |
| Rakim JarrettWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | +0.1 | 23% | 26% | 3% | 3% | 1/1, 7 yd |
| Chase EdmondsRB | 1.2 | −0.1 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Deven ThompkinsWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.1 | +0.3 | 45% | 45% | 0% | — | 1 car, 11 yd |
| David WellsTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.0 | −2.2 | 25% | 21% | 6% | 0% | 2/2, -10 yd |
| Sean TuckerRB | 0.7 | −3.0 | 24% | 18% | 0% | — | 8 car, 7 yd |
| Trent TaylorWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 43% | 47% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.4 | 34% | 33% | 7% | 12% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | -0.3 | −1.1 | — | — | — | — | 4 snaps — too few to rate. |
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 Buccaneers 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.
(2:12) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short middle intended for 24-K.Herbert INTERCEPTED by 7-S.Barrett at CHI 4. 7-S.Barrett for 4 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q4 2:12 · Bears · 1st & 11 at CHI 6 · gained nothing · -7.09 EP · −18.4% win probability
155 snaps placed · 10 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 165 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 155 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 160. 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.
7 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 90 yards from the CHI 10 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; TB 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. Open any play above to see the eleven men who were actually on the field for it.
165 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
165 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears0
Buccaneers3Bears6Buccaneers3Bears7Buccaneers3How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
Bears7Buccaneers9Bears7Buccaneers10Bears10Buccaneers10Bears10Buccaneers13How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
Bears10Buccaneers19Bears10Buccaneers20Bears16Buccaneers20Bears17Buccaneers20How the play was built
A screen, a man in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap, it should have been intercepted.
Bears17Buccaneers26Bears17Buccaneers27Win 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 Buccaneers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 16/29 | 211 | 1 | 2 | 6 | −8.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khalil Herbert | 7 | 35 | 5.0 | 0 | +3.4 |
| Roschon Johnson | 4 | 32 | 8.0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Justin Fields |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 6 | 7 | 104 | 0 | 25% | +6.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 4 | 6 | 38 | 0 | 21% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tremaine Edmunds | 5 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker Mayfield | 26/34 | 317 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +13.3 |
| 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/2023_02_CHI_TB
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Buccaneers closed -2.5 and covered, winning by 10.
Total closed 41; the game landed 44 — over by 3.0.
Conditions and crew
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 0.8 |
| 1 |
| −1.9 |
| Velus Jones | 1 | -3 | -3.0 | 0 | −1.4 |
| +2.6 |
| Chase Claypool | 3 | 8 | 36 | 1 | 29% | −2.6 |
| Khalil Herbert | 1 | 3 | 23 | 0 | 11% | −6.1 |
| Roschon Johnson | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 7% | −0.8 |
| Robert Tonyan | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −1.1 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Greg Stroman | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Sanborn | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Jones | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rachaad White | 17 | 73 | 4.3 | 1 | +4.6 |
| Baker Mayfield | 6 | 17 | 2.8 | 0 | −2.5 |
| Chase Edmonds | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Deven Thompkins | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | +0.6 |
| Sean Tucker | 8 | 7 | 0.9 | 0 | −3.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Evans | 6 | 8 | 171 | 1 | 25% | +13.5 |
| Chris Godwin | 5 | 8 | 58 | 0 | 25% | +0.4 |
| Cade Otton | 6 | 6 | 41 | 0 | 19% | +0.9 |
| Rachaad White | 5 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 16% | +1.0 |
| Trey Palmer | 1 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 6% | +0.3 |
| Rakim Jarrett | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3% | +0.4 |
| David Wells | 2 | 2 | -10 | 0 | 6% | −1.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Neal | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamel Dean | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Antoine Winfield | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Joe Tryon | 3 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Izien | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Vita Vea | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Shaquil Barrett | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Greg Gaines | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Devin White | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lavonte David | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
