The biggest swing of the game · Q1 0:50 · 3rd and 1
Zack Moss
Colts
(:50) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 21-Z.Moss up the middle for 56 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
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.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 2:23 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 5 · Sun, Oct 8, 2023 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 5
It turned at Q1 0:50, 3rd and 1, on Zack Moss — 18.0 win-probability points to the Colts on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 0:50 · 3rd and 1
Zack Moss
Colts
(:50) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 21-Z.Moss up the middle for 56 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Indianapolis Colts 23–16. Biggest swing: Q1 0:50, Colts +18.0% win probability on one snap.
18.0
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 won this one — +0.13 expected points per carry, against Titans at -0.21 expected points per carry.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Colts won this one — 8 of 13 on third down, against Titans at 5 of 12 on third down.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Colts won this one — 9 chunk plays, against Titans at 6 chunk plays.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Colts won this one — no giveaways, against Titans at 1 giveaway.
Coltsthe 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 9.9 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 16 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Colts.
(:50) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 21-Z.Moss up the middle for 56 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Zack Moss's 3-yard rushing touchdown with 8:04 left in the 3rd put Indianapolis Colts ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 3 scores that followed.
9 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Colts ahead 6–1 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, ±0.35 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 64% dropback rate against Colts’s 60 at 47%. Red-zone trips: Titans 4, Colts 6.
Colts won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.21 expected points added per play vs 0.10.
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.
IND's early-down pass rate, 37.0%, is past their previous low of 42.2% in week 4 — the lowest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
46 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.5 points.
TEN's play-action rate, 38.9%, is past their previous high of 34.5% in week 2 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.0 points.
IND's play-action rate, 35.7%, is past their previous high of 23.4% in week 1 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.6 points.
IND's sack or hit rate, 22.2%, is past their previous high of 18.2% in week 4 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.1 points.
TEN's sack or hit rate turned over: 28.6% in week 4 against 7.1% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 3.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 points.
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 -29 pts to 21 pts
Over Expected room →leaned — threw more than the situation asked · +5.6 vs their -5.2 pts, and they swing ±5.0 week to week (+1.12× that swing) · 56 snaps
inside their normal wobble · −8.0 vs their -4.2 pts, and they swing ±9.7 week to week (−0.83× that swing) · 60 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 86%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +5.7 vs their 51.4%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (+0.78× that swing) · 42 early downs
leaned — ran early · −16.8 vs their 53.7%, and they swing ±12.5 week to week (−1.34× that swing) · 46 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -10% to 54%
Tendencies room →leaned — faked the run · +12.4 vs their 26.4%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (+1.24× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
leaned — faked the run · +13.4 vs their 22.3%, and they swing ±12.6 week to week (+1.07× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -44% to 113%
Fourth Down room →leaned — went for it · +29.0 vs their 37.6%, and they swing ±27.1 week to week (+1.07× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 34.1%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -9% to 43%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +4.4 vs their 20.6%, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (+0.53× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · −8.2 vs their 16.6%, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (−0.84× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 32%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · −5.4 vs their 12.5%, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (−0.80× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
leaned — got home · +6.1 vs their 16.1%, and they swing ±6.1 week to week (+1.01× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
IND's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 37.0%, 16.8 points below their season mean of 53.7% and 1.3 times their own 12.5-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.
Tennessee Titans
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · TEN
23/34, 264 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
9.3 expected points added · +2.9% completion over expected
Passing · IND
11/14, 155 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
7.4 expected points added · +11.9% completion over expected
Receiving · TEN
8/11 for 140 yds, 0 TD
32% of team targets · 8.8 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Zack Moss banked 17.3 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.5 | +17.3 | 80% | 79% | 8% | 0% | 23 car, 165 yd, 2 TD · 2/2, 30 yd | |
| 22.0 | +2.5 | 83% | 97% | 32% | 64% | 8/11, 140 yd | |
| 16.9 | +5.7 | 52% | 57% | 15% | 1% | 7 car, 34 yd, 1 TD · 4/5, 35 yd | |
| 15.7 | +7.0 | 71% | 79% | 25% | 26% | 6/6, 97 yd | |
| 10.2 | −1.2 | 100% | 96% | 29% | 34% | 5/7, 52 yd | |
| 9.8 | −3.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/34, 264 yd, 1 INT · 2 car, 12 yd | |
| 9.2 | −3.9 | 62% | 49% | 9% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd · 13 car, 43 yd · 3/3, 19 yd | |
| 8.3 | −5.2 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. | |
| 6.3 | −1.5 | 67% | — | 0% | — | 11/14, 155 yd · 2 car, 1 yd | |
| 4.4 | −1.3 | 33% | — | 0% | — | 9/12, 98 yd · 2 car, 5 yd | |
| 4.4 | −0.1 | 15% | 14% | 4% | 0% | 6 car, 18 yd · 1/1, 16 yd | |
| 3.6 | +0.7 | 61% | 36% | 8% | 6% | 2/2, 16 yd | |
| 3.5 | −1.7 | 39% | 43% | 13% | 3% | 2/3, 15 yd | |
| 3.1 | +1.3 | 47% | 27% | 3% | 3% | 1/1, 21 yd | |
| 2.7 | +0.9 | 18% | 25% | 4% | 7% | 1/1, 17 yd | |
| 2.0 | −0.8 | 98% | 96% | 8% | 16% | 1/2, 10 yd | |
| 1.9 | −3.9 | 70% | 62% | 9% | 13% | 1/3, 9 yd | |
| 1.7 | +0.3 | 37% | 22% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 7 yd | |
| 0.4 | −0.3 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. | |
| 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. | |
| 0.0 | −1.1 | 22% | 38% | 3% | 7% | 0/1, 0 yd |
3 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 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.
(8:09) (Shotgun) 22-D.Henry right tackle to IND 5 for no gain (99-D.Buckner; 44-Z.Franklin).
Q4 8:09 · Titans · 4th & 1 at IND 5 · gained nothing · -4.00 EP · −20.0% win probability
151 snaps placed · 13 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 164 plays across 16 drives, personnel groupings on 151 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 159. Everything here paints once the weekly sync ingests the game — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
9 of 16 drives ended in points. The longest march was IND moving 84 yards from the IND 6 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND 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. Open any play above to see the eleven men who were actually on the field for it.
164 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
164 plays
How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Three in the backfield, play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
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: Titans at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Tannehill | 23/34 | 264 | 0 | 1 | 1 | +9.3 |
| Derrick Henry | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick Henry | 13 | 43 | 3.3 | 0 | −5.4 |
| Tyjae Spears | 7 | 34 | 4.9 | 1 | +1.2 |
| Ryan Tannehill |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeAndre Hopkins | 8 | 11 | 140 | 0 | 32% | +8.8 |
| Tyjae Spears | 4 | 5 | 35 | 0 | 15% | +1.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azeez Al-Shaair | 6 | 8 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kristian Fulton | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kevin Byard | 1 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Gibbens |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardner Minshew | 11/14 | 155 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +7.4 |
| Anthony Richardson | 9/12 | 98 | 0 | 0 | 1 | +2.1 |
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_05_TEN_IND
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Titans closed -2.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 43.5; the game landed 39 — under by 4.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 2 |
| 12 |
| 6.0 |
| 0 |
| +0.8 |
| Chigoziem Okonkwo | 5 | 9 | 33 | 0 | 26% | −1.2 |
| Trevon Wesco | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 3% | +1.7 |
| Derrick Henry | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 9% | −0.2 |
| Nick Westbrook-Ikhine | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9% | −0.4 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3% | +0.8 |
| Kyle Philips | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −1.3 |
| 3 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Roger McCreary | 5 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sean Murphy-Bunting | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeffery Simmons | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Molden | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amani Hooker | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Harold Landry | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zack Moss | 23 | 165 | 7.2 | 2 | +6.2 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 6 | 18 | 3.0 | 0 | −1.7 |
| Anthony Richardson | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Isaiah McKenzie | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Gardner Minshew | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | −2.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Downs | 6 | 6 | 97 | 0 | 25% | +8.1 |
| Michael Pittman | 5 | 7 | 52 | 0 | 29% | +0.2 |
| Zack Moss | 2 | 2 | 30 | 0 | 8% | +2.4 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 4% | +1.6 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 4% | +1.0 |
| Andrew Ogletree | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 8% | +1.7 |
| Kylen Granson | 2 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 13% | −2.9 |
| Alec Pierce | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 8% | +1.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaire Franklin | 5 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kenny Moore | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| E.J. Speed | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Julian Blackmon | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Julius Brents | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grant Stuard | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rodney Thomas | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Jones | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Samson Ebukam | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grover Stewart | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |