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 6:57 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 10 · Sun, Nov 12, 2023 · Acrisure Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 10
It turned at Q4 0:03, 2nd and 10, on Damontae Kazee — 39.0 win-probability points to the Steelers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:03 · 2nd and 10
Damontae Kazee
Steelers
(:03) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short middle intended for 9-C.Watson INTERCEPTED by 23-D.Kazee at PIT 2. 23-D.Kazee ran ob at PIT 32 for 30 yards (50-Z.Tom). PENALTY on GB-50-Z.Tom, Unnecessary Roughness, 0 yards, enforced at PIT 32.
Pittsburgh Steelers 23–19. Biggest swing: Q4 0:03, Steelers +39.0% win probability on one snap.
39.0
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Red zone
Steelers won this one — 2 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Packers at 1 touchdown on 6 trips.
Steelersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Steelers won this one — no giveaways, against Packers at 2 giveaways.
Steelersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Steelers won this one — 48% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Packers at 38% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Steelersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Packers owned this one and still lost it — 8 of 16 on third down, against Steelers at 4 of 13 on third down.
Packersthe 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 2.1 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 6 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Packers.
(:03) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short middle intended for 9-C.Watson INTERCEPTED by 23-D.Kazee at PIT 2. 23-D.Kazee ran ob at PIT 32 for 30 yards (50-Z.Tom). PENALTY on GB-50-Z.Tom, Unnecessary Roughness, 0 yards, enforce
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Chris Boswell's 49-yard field goal with 1:09 left in the 3rd put Pittsburgh Steelers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 1 score that followed.
Jayden Reed35-yd TD catch35-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan Love · kick blocked by P.Peterson+613–17
Chris Boswell49-yd field goal49-yard field goalholder P.Harvin · snap C.KuntzLead never changed again+319–209 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Packerscategory by categorySteelers
Steelers ahead 5–3 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: Packers ran 64 snaps at a 66% dropback rate against Steelers’s 60 at 43%. Red-zone trips: Packers 6, Steelers 3.
Packers outgained Steelers 399-324 but lost the turnover battle 2-0. 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.
PIT's play-action rate turned over: 13.3% in week 9 against 26.9% here — they dropped back clean then and faked the run now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
26 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points.
PIT's sack or hit rate turned over: 22.7% in week 9 against 11.9% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
42 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 4.9 points.
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 -26 pts to 18 pts
Over Expected room →Packers-3.5 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.9 vs their 0.4 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (−0.59× that swing) · 64 snaps
Steelers-10.0 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.9 vs their -6.1 pts, and they swing ±7.5 week to week (−0.52× that swing) · 60 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 12% to 85%
Tendencies room →Packers54.3%right on their number · −1.0 vs their 55.4%, and they swing ±11.3 week to week (−0.09× that swing) · 46 early downs
Steelers37.0%inside their normal wobble · −11.1 vs their 48.1%, and they swing ±14.1 week to week (−0.79× that swing) · 46 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 45%
Tendencies room →Packers19.0%right on their number · −4.1 vs their 23.2%, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (−0.49× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
Steelers26.9%leaned — faked the run · +10.9 vs their 16.0%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+1.67× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -40% to 109%
Fourth Down room →Packers33.3%right on their number · −8.3 vs their 41.7%, and they swing ±25.9 week to week (−0.32× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Steelers20.0%right on their number · −8.2 vs their 28.2%, and they swing ±26.3 week to week (−0.31× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 59%
Tendencies room →Packers11.5%inside their normal wobble · −10.8 vs their 22.3%, and they swing ±11.1 week to week (−0.97× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Steelers23.8%right on their number · −4.8 vs their 28.6%, and they swing ±11.6 week to week (−0.42× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 32%
Tendencies room →Packers15.4%right on their number · −1.2 vs their 16.6%, and they swing ±6.0 week to week (−0.20× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Steelers11.9%inside their normal wobble · −4.0 vs their 15.9%, and they swing ±4.9 week to week (−0.82× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
PIT's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 26.9%, 10.9 points above their season mean of 16.0% and 1.7 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.
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Pittsburgh Steelers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
21/40, 289 yds, 2 TD, 2 INT
5.2 expected points added · -4.2% completion over expected
Passing · PIT
14/23, 126 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-5.7 expected points added · -6.9% 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.
Jayden Reed banked 12.8 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 19.4 | +12.8 | 51% | 53% | 14% | 15% | 5/5, 84 yd, 1 TD |
| Jaylen WarrenRB · Committee Back | 19.0 | +5.0 | 51% | 50% | 18% | 0% | 15 car, 101 yd, 1 TD · 2/4, 9 yd |
| Najee HarrisRB · Committee Back | 18.6 | +3.2 | 51% | 42% | 18% | 0% | 16 car, 82 yd, 1 TD · 3/4, 14 yd |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 16.7 | −0.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/40, 289 yd, 2 TD, 2 INT · 2 car, 11 yd |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Rotational Receiver | 12.1 | +3.7 | 82% | 77% | 14% | 22% | 3/5, 31 yd, 1 TD |
| Aaron JonesRB · Committee Back | 9.4 | −5.0 | 56% | 49% | 16% | 0% | 13 car, 35 yd · 4/6, 19 yd |
| A.J. DillonRB | 9.1 | +1.1 | 50% | 47% | 8% | 3% | 9 car, 70 yd · 1/3, 11 yd |
| Luke MusgraveTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.4 | +0.3 | 74% | 72% | 11% | 17% | 2/4, 64 yd |
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.1 | +1.6 | 44% | 42% | 11% | 12% | 3/4, 51 yd |
| George PickensWR · Featured Receiver | 7.5 | +1.4 | 95% | 92% | 18% | 49% | 3/4, 45 yd |
| Kenny PickettQB · Starter QB | 6.6 | −1.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 14/23, 126 yd · 4 car, 16 yd |
| Connor HeywardTE · Featured Receiver | 6.2 | +0.8 | 52% | 69% | 18% | 8% | 3/4, 32 yd |
| Christian WatsonWR · Featured Receiver | 4.3 | −7.7 | 75% | 77% | 19% | 24% | 2/7, 23 yd |
| Diontae JohnsonWR · Featured Receiver | 2.7 | −3.4 | 82% | 88% | 18% | 62% | 1/4, 17 yd |
| Calvin AustinWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.9 | −0.3 | 20% | 15% | 5% | 0% | 1 car, 6 yd · 1/1, 3 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | −2.4 | 51% | 47% | 8% | 3% | 1/3, 6 yd |
| Darnell WashingtonTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | +0.2 | 51% | 31% | 5% | 0% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Josiah DeguaraTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Anthony McFarlandRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Rod WilliamsTE | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. |
| Miles BoykinWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 14% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 4 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 Steelers attack right, the Packers 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.
(:03) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short middle intended for 9-C.Watson INTERCEPTED by 23-D.Kazee at PIT 2. 23-D.Kazee ran ob at PIT 32 for 30 yards (50-Z.Tom). PENALTY on GB-50-Z.Tom, Unnecessary Roughness, 0 yards, enforced at PIT 32.
Q4 0:03 · Packers · 2nd & 10 at PIT 16 · gained nothing · -2.07 EP · −40.8% win probability
162 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: 175 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 162 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 170. 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 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 80 yards from the GB 20 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; PIT attacks right, GB 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.
175 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
175 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Packers0
Steelers6Packers0Steelers7Packers6Steelers7Packers7Steelers7Packers7Steelers13Packers7Steelers14Packers7Steelers17How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers13Steelers17How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers16Steelers17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers19Steelers17Packers19Steelers20Packers19Steelers23How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, 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: Packers at Steelers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 21/40 | 289 | 2 | 2 | 1 | +5.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A.J. Dillon | 9 | 70 | 7.8 | 0 | +2.0 |
| Aaron Jones | 13 | 35 | 2.7 | 0 | −3.3 |
| Jordan Love | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Reed | 5 | 5 | 84 | 1 | 14% | +7.8 |
| Luke Musgrave | 2 | 4 | 64 | 0 | 11% | +3.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rudy Ford | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Owens | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tedarrell Slaton |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kenny Pickett | 14/23 | 126 | 0 | 0 | 1 | −5.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaylen Warren |
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_10_GB_PIT
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Steelers closed -3 and covered, winning by 4.
Total closed 38.5; the game landed 42 — over by 3.5.
Conditions and crew
| Dontayvion Wicks | 3 | 4 | 51 | 0 | 11% | +3.0 |
| Romeo Doubs | 3 | 5 | 31 | 1 | 14% | +1.8 |
| Christian Watson | 2 | 7 | 23 | 0 | 19% | −7.3 |
| Aaron Jones | 4 | 6 | 19 | 0 | 16% | +1.8 |
| A.J. Dillon | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 8% | −1.1 |
| Tucker Kraft | 1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 8% | −1.6 |
| 2 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Corey Ballentine | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Keisean Nixon | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Preston Smith | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lukas Van Ness | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| De'Vondre Campbell | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rashan Gary | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 |
| 101 |
| 6.7 |
| 1 |
| +5.2 |
| Najee Harris | 16 | 82 | 5.1 | 1 | +2.9 |
| Kenny Pickett | 4 | 16 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.0 |
| Calvin Austin | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | +0.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| George Pickens | 3 | 4 | 45 | 0 | 18% | +1.2 |
| Connor Heyward | 3 | 4 | 32 | 0 | 18% | −0.0 |
| Diontae Johnson | 1 | 4 | 17 | 0 | 18% | −1.7 |
| Najee Harris | 3 | 4 | 14 | 0 | 18% | −0.6 |
| Jaylen Warren | 2 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 18% | −1.6 |
| Darnell Washington | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 5% | +0.3 |
| Calvin Austin | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 5% | −0.2 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keanu Neal | 4 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Elandon Roberts | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| T.J. Watt | 5 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keeanu Benton | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Joey Porter | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| James Pierre | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Riley | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mark Robinson | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alex Highsmith | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Patrick Peterson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
