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 4 · Sun, Oct 1, 2023 · SoFi Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 4
It turned at Q4 2:39, 1st and 3, on Asante Samuel — 24.2 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 24–17. Biggest swing: Q4 2:39, Chargers +24.2% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 2:39 · 1st and 3
Asante Samuel
Chargers
(2:39) (Shotgun) 4-A.O'Connell pass short right intended for 16-J.Meyers INTERCEPTED by 26-A.Samuel at LAC 3. 26-A.Samuel to LAC 11 for 8 yards.
24.2
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Chargers won this one — 5 of 13 on third down, against Raiders at 1 of 11 on third down.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Chargers won this one — 8 chunk plays, against Raiders at 3 chunk plays.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Chargers won this one — 1 giveaway, against Raiders at 3 giveaways.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Raiders owned this one and still lost it — 45% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Chargers at 34% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Raidersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Who won it for them
Note
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
The model and the market were 7.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 19 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Raiders.
(2:39) (Shotgun) 4-A.O'Connell pass short right intended for 16-J.Meyers INTERCEPTED by 26-A.Samuel at LAC 3. 26-A.Samuel to LAC 11 for 8 yards.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Cameron Dicker's 33-yard field goal with 10:45 left in the 2nd put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Cameron Dicker33-yd field goal33-yard field goalholder J.Scott · snap J.HarrisLead never changed again+37–107 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Raiderscategory by categoryChargers
Chargers ahead 7–2 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
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: Raiders ran 69 snaps at a 67% dropback rate against Chargers’s 59 at 53%. Red-zone trips: Raiders 5, Chargers 4.
Chargers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.03 expected points added per play vs -0.17.
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.
LAC's early-down pass rate turned over: 78.0% in week 3 against 45.5% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 3.6 of their own weekly swings across the two.
44 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.1 points. · −1.6σ from their own normal
LAC's blitz rate sent turned over: 38.2% in week 3 against 15.2% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
46 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.3 points. · −1.4σ from their own normal
LAC's pass rate over expected turned over: +19.4 pts in week 3 against −3.0 pts here — they threw more than the situation asked then and ran more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.9 of their own weekly swings across the two.
59 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.8 points. · −0.5σ 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 -19 pts to 21 pts
Over Expected room →Raiders0.1 ptsright on their number · +2.3 vs their -2.2 pts, and they swing ±6.3 week to week (+0.36× that swing) · 69 snaps
Chargers-3.0 ptsright on their number · −3.8 vs their 0.7 pts, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (−0.48× that swing) · 59 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 28% to 84%
Tendencies room →Raiders63.6%inside their normal wobble · +9.1 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (+0.87× that swing) · 55 early downs
Chargers45.5%leaned — ran early · −14.8 vs their 60.3%, and they swing ±9.1 week to week (−1.64× that swing) · 44 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 46%
Tendencies room →Raiders8.7%leaned — dropped back clean · −13.0 vs their 21.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−1.38× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
Chargers19.4%right on their number · −1.0 vs their 20.3%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (−0.14× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -26% to 102%
Fourth Down room →Raiders50.0%leaned — went for it · +24.0 vs their 26.0%, and they swing ±17.9 week to week (+1.34× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Chargers66.7%leaned — went for it · +28.5 vs their 38.2%, and they swing ±25.0 week to week (+1.14× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 56%
Tendencies room →Raiders25.8%right on their number · +3.6 vs their 22.2%, and they swing ±9.0 week to week (+0.40× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Chargers15.2%leaned — sat back · −14.6 vs their 29.8%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (−1.42× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 31%
Tendencies room →Raiders12.9%right on their number · −0.5 vs their 13.4%, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−0.07× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Chargers17.4%inside their normal wobble · +3.9 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.9 week to week (+0.57× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
LAC's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 45.5%, 14.8 points below their season mean of 60.3% and 1.6 times their own 9.1-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.
Las Vegas Raiders
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · LV
24/39, 238 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-11.8 expected points added · -8.1% completion over expected
Passing · LAC
13/24, 167 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-3.7 expected points added · -7.3% 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.
Derius Davis banked 3.7 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh JacobsRB · Bell Cow Back | 27.9 | −1.9 | 70% | 61% | 29% | 4% | 17 car, 58 yd, 1 TD · 8/11, 81 yd |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 23.4 | −5.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/24, 167 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 12 car, 27 yd, 2 TD |
| Davante AdamsWR · Alpha Receiver | 15.5 | −10.9 | 86% | 87% | 34% | 59% | 8/13, 75 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Featured Receiver | 12.2 | +0.3 | 75% | 97% | 21% | 22% | 3/5, 32 yd, 1 TD |
| Josh PalmerWR · Alpha Receiver | 10.7 | −3.6 | 86% | 97% | 33% | 52% | 3/8, 77 yd |
| Aidan O'ConnellQB · Starter QB | 9.8 | −20.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 24/39, 238 yd, 1 INT · 3 car, 3 yd, 1 TD |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.7 | +3.7 | 18% | 16% | 8% | 0% | 3 car, 51 yd · 2/2, 16 yd |
| Joshua KelleyRB · Committee Back | 6.5 | −5.8 | 60% | 58% | 0% | — | 17 car, 65 yd |
| Jakobi MeyersWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.3 | −4.4 | 96% | 96% | 11% | 16% | 2/4, 33 yd |
| Isaiah SpillerRB | 4.7 | −2.0 | 23% | 32% | 8% | 0% | 5 car, 12 yd · 2/2, 15 yd |
| Ameer AbdullahRB | 3.4 | +0.3 | 21% | 30% | 5% | 3% | 2/2, 14 yd |
| Hunter RenfrowWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | −3.2 | 45% | 59% | 11% | 14% | 2/4, 12 yd |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.9 | +0.2 | 69% | 71% | 8% | 1% | 2/2, 9 yd |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.8 | −4.6 | 51% | 71% | 13% | 18% | 1/3, 18 yd |
| Jakob JohnsonRB | 2.2 | −0.8 | 34% | 24% | 5% | 2% | 1/2, 12 yd |
| Austin HooperTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | −0.7 | 51% | 61% | 5% | 2% | 1/2, 11 yd |
| Zamir WhiteRB | 1.5 | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Donald ParhamTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.4 | 23% | 23% | 4% | 5% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Simi FehokoWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Stone SmarttTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.3 | 40% | 19% | 4% | 6% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 11% | 7% | 0% | — | No touches. |
2 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 Chargers attack right, the Raiders 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.
(2:39) (Shotgun) 4-A.O'Connell pass short right intended for 16-J.Meyers INTERCEPTED by 26-A.Samuel at LAC 3. 26-A.Samuel to LAC 11 for 8 yards.
Q4 2:39 · Raiders · 1st & goal at LAC 3 · gained nothing · -6.57 EP · −23.7% win probability
165 snaps placed · 9 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 174 plays across 23 drives, personnel groupings on 165 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 169. 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 23 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 86 yards from the LAC 14 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LAC attacks right, LV 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.
174 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
174 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Raiders0
Chargers6Raiders0Chargers7Raiders6Chargers7Raiders7Chargers7How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Raiders7Chargers10How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Raiders7Chargers16Raiders7Chargers17How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Raiders7Chargers23Raiders7Chargers24Raiders10Chargers24Raiders16Chargers24Raiders17Chargers24How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a quarterback sneak, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
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: Raiders at Chargers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aidan O'Connell | 24/39 | 238 | 0 | 1 | 7 | −11.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jacobs | 17 | 58 | 3.4 | 1 | +0.6 |
| Zamir White | 3 | 15 | 5.0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Aidan O'Connell |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jacobs | 8 | 11 | 81 | 0 | 29% | +5.0 |
| Davante Adams | 8 | 13 | 75 | 0 | 34% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxx Crosby | 4 | 3 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Jenkins | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Robert Spillane |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 13/24 | 167 | 1 | 1 | 2 | −3.7 |
| 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_04_LV_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 -7 and it landed exactly on the number — a push.
Total closed 49; the game landed 41 — under by 8.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 1.0 |
| 1 |
| −0.4 |
| +7.7 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 2 | 4 | 33 | 0 | 11% | −5.7 |
| Ameer Abdullah | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 5% | +0.3 |
| Jakob Johnson | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 5% | +1.0 |
| Hunter Renfrow | 2 | 4 | 12 | 0 | 11% | +0.2 |
| Austin Hooper | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 5% | −0.1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Trevon Moehrig | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Marcus Peters | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Divine Deablo | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Adam Butler | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Long | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ameer Abdullah | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Isaac Rochell | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joshua Kelley | 17 | 65 | 3.8 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Derius Davis | 3 | 51 | 17.0 | 0 | +2.3 |
| Justin Herbert | 12 | 27 | 2.3 | 2 | +0.6 |
| Isaiah Spiller | 5 | 12 | 2.4 | 0 | −2.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Palmer | 3 | 8 | 77 | 0 | 33% | −3.2 |
| Keenan Allen | 3 | 5 | 32 | 1 | 21% | +3.5 |
| Quentin Johnston | 1 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 13% | +0.0 |
| Derius Davis | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 8% | +0.2 |
| Isaiah Spiller | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 8% | +0.9 |
| Gerald Everett | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 8% | −0.3 |
| Donald Parham | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| Stone Smartt | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khalil Mack | 7 | 2 | 6.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Michael Davis | 8 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Kendricks | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asante Samuel | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kenneth Murray | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tuli Tuipulotu | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dean Marlowe | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja'Sir Taylor | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Raheem Layne | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Joseph | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
