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.
This page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
This 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 8:44 AM ET · 15 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 9 · Sun, Nov 5, 2023 · Mercedes-Benz Superdome
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 9
It turned at Q3 13:07, 2nd and 4, on D.J. Moore — 14.6 win-probability points to the Saints on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
New Orleans Saints 24–17. Biggest swing: Q3 13:07, Saints +14.6% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 13:07 · 2nd and 4
D.J. Moore
Saints
(13:07) (Shotgun) 17-T.Bagent pass short middle to 2-D.Moore to CHI 42 for 13 yards (29-P.Adebo; 32-T.Mathieu). FUMBLES (29-P.Adebo), RECOVERED by NO-29-P.Adebo at CHI 39.
14.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Saints won this one — no giveaways, against Bears at 5 giveaways.
Saintsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Bears owned this one and still lost it — -0.17 expected points per carry, against Saints at -0.30 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Saints won this one — +0.10 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.04 expected points per dropback.
Saintsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 6 chunk plays, against Saints at 5 chunk plays.
Bearsthe 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 15.1 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 28 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(13:07) (Shotgun) 17-T.Bagent pass short middle to 2-D.Moore to CHI 42 for 13 yards (29-P.Adebo; 32-T.Mathieu). FUMBLES (29-P.Adebo), RECOVERED by NO-29-P.Adebo at CHI 39.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Juwan Johnson's 3-yard touchdown catch with 11:11 left in the 4th put New Orleans Saints ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Juwan Johnson3-yd TD catch3-yard touchdown catchfrom Taysom HillLead never changed again+717–247 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categorySaints
Deadlocked at 4–4 categories. Biggest gap to Saints, 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, ±0.35 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: Bears ran 64 snaps at a 58% dropback rate against Saints’s 61 at 59%. Red-zone trips: Bears 4, Saints 5.
Bears outgained Saints 368-302 but lost the turnover battle 5-0. That was the game.
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.
CHI's blitz rate sent turned over: 39.0% in week 8 against 16.7% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.5 points. · −0.4σ from their own normal
CHI's fourth-and-short go rate turned over: 80.0% in week 8 against 33.3% here — they went for it then and took the kick now, a turn of 2.3 of their own weekly swings across the two.
3 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 9 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 19.9 points. · −0.3σ from their own normal
CHI's play-action rate turned over: 7.5% in week 8 against 24.3% here — they dropped back clean then and faked the run now, a turn of 2.3 of their own weekly swings across the two.
37 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.3 points. · +0.1σ 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 -19 pts to 11 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-7.8 ptsinside their normal wobble · −2.7 vs their -5.1 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−0.51× that swing) · 64 snaps
Saints-0.5 ptsright on their number · +2.1 vs their -2.6 pts, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (+0.40× that swing) · 61 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 23% to 83%
Tendencies room →Bears51.0%right on their number · −0.1 vs their 51.1%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (−0.01× that swing) · 51 early downs
Saints50.0%right on their number · −3.3 vs their 53.3%, and they swing ±11.8 week to week (−0.28× that swing) · 46 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 43%
Tendencies room →Bears24.3%right on their number · +1.1 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (+0.14× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
Saints8.3%inside their normal wobble · −4.8 vs their 13.1%, and they swing ±7.6 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -16% to 91%
Fourth Down room →Bears33.3%right on their number · −6.6 vs their 39.9%, and they swing ±19.9 week to week (−0.33× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Saints20.0%right on their number · −6.4 vs their 26.4%, and they swing ±15.7 week to week (−0.41× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 50%
Tendencies room →Bears16.7%right on their number · −4.6 vs their 21.3%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−0.44× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Saints21.6%right on their number · +0.9 vs their 20.7%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (+0.08× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 29%
Tendencies room →Bears5.6%leaned — stayed blocked · −6.9 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−1.07× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Saints10.8%right on their number · −0.4 vs their 11.2%, and they swing ±5.6 week to week (−0.06× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
CHI's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 5.6%, 6.9 points below their season mean of 12.4% and 1.1 times their own 6.5-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 · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
New Orleans Saints
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
18/30, 220 yds, 2 TD, 3 INT
-3.7 expected points added · -2.3% completion over expected
Passing · NO
25/34, 211 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
2.7 expected points added · +4.6% completion over expected
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Cole Kmet banked 9.5 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cole KmetTE · Alpha Receiver | 23.5 | +9.5 | 85% | 78% | 31% | 22% | 6/8, 55 yd, 2 TD |
| Taysom HillQB | 20.6 | −5.3 | 46% | — | 16% | 8% | 1/1, 3 yd, 1 TD · 11 car, 52 yd · 4/5, 13 yd, 1 TD |
| Derek CarrQB · Starter QB | 16.7 | +2.7 | 83% | — | 0% | — | 25/34, 211 yd, 2 TD · 3 car, 3 yd |
| Chris OlaveWR · Alpha Receiver | 16.6 | +3.3 | 71% | 81% | 25% | 44% | 6/8, 46 yd, 1 TD |
| Tyson BagentQB · Starter QB | 15.8 | −1.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 18/30, 220 yd, 2 TD, 3 INT · 8 car, 70 yd |
| Juwan JohnsonTE · Rotational Receiver | 13.9 | +4.1 | 75% | 72% | 16% | 14% | 5/5, 29 yd, 1 TD |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Featured Receiver | 13.2 | +4.4 | 87% | 81% | 23% | 14% | 5/6, 82 yd |
| Alvin KamaraRB · Committee Back | 11.0 | −1.9 | 49% | 53% | 16% | 4% | 9 car, 26 yd · 4/5, 44 yd |
| D'Onta ForemanRB · Bell Cow Back | 8.3 | −0.6 | 59% | 32% | 0% | — | 20 car, 83 yd |
| D.J. MooreWR · Featured Receiver | 5.4 | −4.0 | 97% | 81% | 19% | 52% | 3/5, 44 yd |
| Rashid ShaheedWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.2 | +0.7 | 51% | 61% | 9% | 4% | 3/3, 22 yd |
| Darrynton EvansRB | 4.1 | +0.9 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Kendre MillerRB | 4.1 | +2.3 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Foster MoreauTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.3 | +1.4 | 49% | 25% | 3% | 7% | 1/1, 23 yd |
| Jamaal WilliamsRB | 3.2 | −2.3 | 43% | 39% | 9% | 2% | 3 car, 6 yd · 2/3, 6 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 2.5 | +0.3 | 29% | 38% | 4% | 0% | 2 car, 6 yd · 1/1, 9 yd |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | +0.7 | 22% | 24% | 4% | 3% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 0.0 | −1.4 | 15% | 14% | 4% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Trent TaylorWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Michael ThomasWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | 63% | 69% | 3% | 6% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Tyler ScottWR · Rotational Receiver | -0.5 | −4.3 | 59% | 51% | 8% | 7% | 1 car, -5 yd · 0/2, 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 Saints 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.
(:49) (Shotgun) 4-D.Carr pass short left to 12-C.Olave for 8 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q1 0:49 · Saints · 3rd & goal at CHI 8 · gained 8 · +2.78 EP · +11.8% win probability
157 snaps placed · 15 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 172 plays across 23 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 167. 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.
7 of 23 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 75 yards from the CHI 25 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; NO 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.
172 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
172 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears6
Saints0Bears7Saints0How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears7Saints6Bears7Saints7Bears13Saints7Bears14Saints7Bears14Saints13Bears14Saints14Bears14Saints17Bears17Saints17Bears17Saints23Bears17Saints24Win 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 Saints, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyson Bagent | 18/30 | 220 | 2 | 3 | 2 | −3.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Onta Foreman | 20 | 83 | 4.2 | 0 | −2.6 |
| Tyson Bagent | 8 | 70 | 8.8 | 0 | +8.8 |
| Roschon Johnson | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darnell Mooney | 5 | 6 | 82 | 0 | 23% | +2.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 6 | 8 | 55 | 2 | 31% | +1.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T.J. Edwards | 7 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jack Sanborn | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derek Carr | 25/34 | 211 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +2.7 |
| Taysom Hill | 1/1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +0.8 |
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_09_CHI_NO
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Saints closed -9, won by 7 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 42; the game landed 41 — under by 1.0.
Conditions and crew
| Darrynton Evans | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.9 |
| Tyler Scott | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 0 | −1.2 |
| D.J. Moore | 3 | 5 | 44 | 0 | 19% | −4.6 |
| Darrynton Evans | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 8% | +0.7 |
| Robert Tonyan | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 4% | +2.1 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4% | +0.8 |
| Velus Jones | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| Tyler Scott | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8% | −4.3 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Billings | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Jones | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taysom Hill | 11 | 52 | 4.7 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Alvin Kamara | 9 | 26 | 2.9 | 0 | −1.5 |
| Jamaal Williams | 3 | 6 | 2.0 | 0 | −1.3 |
| Derek Carr | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | −9.4 |
| Kendre Miller | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Olave | 6 | 8 | 46 | 1 | 25% | +1.2 |
| Alvin Kamara | 4 | 5 | 44 | 0 | 16% | +1.0 |
| Kendre Miller | 1 | 1 | 31 | 0 | 3% | +2.4 |
| Juwan Johnson | 5 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 16% | +1.1 |
| Foster Moreau | 1 | 1 | 23 | 0 | 3% | +1.2 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 3 | 3 | 22 | 0 | 9% | +1.1 |
| Taysom Hill | 4 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 16% | +1.0 |
| Jamaal Williams | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 9% | −2.8 |
| Michael Thomas | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −1.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demario Davis | 7 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cameron Jordan | 3 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Paulson Adebo | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 2 | 3 |
| Tyrann Mathieu | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Khalen Saunders | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nathan Shepherd | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carl Granderson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bryan Bresee | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Marshon Lattimore | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Marcus Maye | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
