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 2:38 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 10 · Sun, Nov 12, 2023 · Allegiant Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 10
It turned at Q4 1:22, 2nd and 8, on Robert Spillane — 45.9 win-probability points to the Raiders on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 1:22 · 2nd and 8
Robert Spillane
Raiders
(1:22) (Shotgun) 2-Z.Wilson pass short right intended for 10-A.Lazard INTERCEPTED by 41-R.Spillane [90-J.Tillery] at LV 15. 41-R.Spillane to LV 40 for 25 yards (10-A.Lazard).
Las Vegas Raiders 16–12. Biggest swing: Q4 1:22, Raiders +45.9% win probability on one snap.
45.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Red zone
Raiders won this one — 1 touchdown on 1 trip, against Jets at 0 touchdowns on 2 trips.
Raidersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Jets owned this one and still lost it — 8 chunk plays, against Raiders at 4 chunk plays.
Jetsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Running the ball
Raiders won this one — -0.05 expected points per carry, against Jets at -0.39 expected points per carry.
Raidersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Jets owned this one and still lost it — -0.04 expected points per dropback, against Raiders at -0.33 expected points per dropback.
Jetsthe 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 7.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 12 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Raiders.
(1:22) (Shotgun) 2-Z.Wilson pass short right intended for 10-A.Lazard INTERCEPTED by 41-R.Spillane [90-J.Tillery] at LV 15. 41-R.Spillane to LV 40 for 25 yards (10-A.Lazard).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Michael Mayer's 7-yard touchdown catch with 14:17 left in the 4th put Las Vegas Raiders ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 1 score that followed.
Michael Mayer7-yd TD catch7-yard touchdown catchfrom Aidan O'ConnellLead never changed again+79–168 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Jetscategory by categoryRaiders
Jets ahead 6–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Raiders, in red-zone touchdowns.
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, ±0.39 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: Jets ran 63 snaps at a 73% dropback rate against Raiders’s 62 at 48%. Red-zone trips: Jets 2, Raiders 1.
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.
NYJ's fourth-and-short go rate, 0.0%, was the lowest of the 22 team-games charted in week 10 — 20.0 points clear of the next team along.
3 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 13 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 25.9 points.
LV's pass rate over expected, −15.4 pts, is past their previous low of −11.7 pts in week 6 — the lowest of their 10 charted games through week 10.
62 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.3 points.
LV's play-action rate turned over: 36.0% in week 9 against 16.7% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
30 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 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 -22 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Jets2.1 ptsright on their number · +3.2 vs their -1.1 pts, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+0.39× that swing) · 63 snaps
Raiders-15.4 ptsoff script — ran more than the situation asked · −13.2 vs their -2.2 pts, and they swing ±6.3 week to week (−2.10× that swing) · 62 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 24% to 97%
Tendencies room →Jets65.2%right on their number · +4.4 vs their 60.8%, and they swing ±14.2 week to week (+0.31× that swing) · 46 early downs
Raiders42.2%leaned — ran early · −12.3 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−1.18× that swing) · 45 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 46%
Tendencies room →Jets15.2%right on their number · −2.0 vs their 17.3%, and they swing ±9.5 week to week (−0.22× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
Raiders16.7%inside their normal wobble · −5.0 vs their 21.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.53× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -34% to 98%
Fourth Down room →Jets0.0%leaned — took the kick · −31.7 vs their 31.7%, and they swing ±25.9 week to week (−1.22× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
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
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 45%
Tendencies room →Jets20.0%inside their normal wobble · +3.9 vs their 16.1%, and they swing ±6.2 week to week (+0.63× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
Raiders17.4%inside their normal wobble · −4.8 vs their 22.2%, and they swing ±9.0 week to week (−0.53× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 38%
Tendencies room →Jets20.0%right on their number · +3.0 vs their 17.0%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+0.36× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
Raiders13.0%right on their number · −0.3 vs their 13.4%, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−0.05× that swing) · 46 dropbacks
LV's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: -15.4 pts, 13.2 points below their season mean of -2.2 pts and 2.1 times their own 6.3-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.
New York Jets
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Las Vegas Raiders
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · NYJ
23/39, 263 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-4.1 expected points added · -6.9% completion over expected
Passing · LV
16/27, 153 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-9.8 expected points added · -8.6% 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.
Tyler Conklin banked 4.5 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garrett WilsonWR · Alpha Receiver | 18.3 | −4.1 | 94% | 85% | 38% | 33% | 0/1, 0 yd · 9/14, 93 yd |
| Davante AdamsWR · Alpha Receiver | 14.6 | −3.8 | 97% | 100% | 52% | 89% | 6/13, 86 yd |
| Tyler ConklinTE · Featured Receiver | 14.0 | +4.5 | 64% | 65% | 19% | 13% | 7/7, 70 yd |
| Zach WilsonQB · Starter QB | 13.9 | −0.8 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/39, 263 yd, 1 INT · 4 car, 54 yd |
| Josh JacobsRB · Bell Cow Back | 12.7 | −3.8 | 83% | 67% | 8% | 0% | 27 car, 116 yd · 2/2, 11 yd |
| Michael MayerTE · Featured Receiver | 10.9 | +2.3 | 88% | 80% | 20% | 8% | 3/5, 19 yd, 1 TD |
| Breece HallRB · Bell Cow Back | 10.5 | −0.2 | 70% | 63% | 8% | 0% | 13 car, 28 yd · 3/3, 47 yd |
| Aidan O'ConnellQB · Starter QB | 8.4 | −0.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 16/27, 153 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 2 car, 3 yd |
| Jakobi MeyersWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | +1.2 | 91% | 90% | 8% | 6% | 2/2, 21 yd |
| Xavier GipsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.4 | −0.7 | 68% | 67% | 8% | 16% | 1/3, 24 yd |
| Allen LazardWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.7 | −4.2 | 89% | 83% | 14% | 16% | 1/5, 17 yd |
| Dalvin CookRB | 2.6 | −0.8 | 15% | 11% | 3% | 1% | 4 car, 26 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Austin HooperTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | +0.3 | 42% | 33% | 4% | 3% | 1/1, 7 yd |
| C.J. UzomahTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | +0.2 | 35% | 26% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Malik TaylorWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | −1.9 | 15% | 20% | 5% | 12% | 1/2, 6 yd |
| Hunter RenfrowWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | +0.3 | 42% | 50% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | +0.9 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Ameer AbdullahRB | 1.4 | −0.1 | 16% | 33% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 4 yd |
| Tre TuckerWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.9 | +0.3 | 23% | 37% | 0% | — | 1 car, 9 yd |
| Zamir WhiteRB | 0.5 | +0.1 | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Michael CarterRB | 0.0 | −1.1 | 14% | 15% | 3% | 1% | 0/1, 0 yd |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number.
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 Raiders attack right, the Jets 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.
(1:22) (Shotgun) 2-Z.Wilson pass short right intended for 10-A.Lazard INTERCEPTED by 41-R.Spillane [90-J.Tillery] at LV 15. 41-R.Spillane to LV 40 for 25 yards (10-A.Lazard).
Q4 1:22 · Jets · 2nd & 8 at LV 20 · gained nothing · -5.67 EP · −43.9% win probability
159 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: 172 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 159 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.
8 of 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was NYJ moving 56 yards from the NYJ 24 for a turnover. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LV attacks right, NYJ 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 movedHow the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Jets3
Raiders0How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Jets3Raiders3Jets6Raiders3How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Jets9Raiders3Jets9Raiders6Jets9Raiders9How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the second read, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
Jets9Raiders15Jets9Raiders16Jets12Raiders16How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a trick play, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
How the play was built
A run-pass option, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, 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: Jets at Raiders, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach Wilson | 23/39 | 263 | 0 | 1 | 2 | −4.1 |
| Garrett Wilson | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach Wilson | 4 | 54 | 13.5 | 0 | +2.9 |
| Breece Hall | 13 | 28 | 2.2 | 0 | −7.4 |
| Dalvin Cook |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garrett Wilson | 9 | 14 | 93 | 0 | 38% | +3.8 |
| Tyler Conklin | 7 | 7 | 70 | 0 | 19% | +2.3 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Mosley | 6 | 9 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordan Whitehead | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Quincy Williams | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tony Adams |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aidan O'Connell | 16/27 | 153 | 1 | 1 | 3 | −9.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jacobs |
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_NYJ_LV
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Jets closed -1 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 35.5; the game landed 28 — under by 7.5.
Conditions and crew
| 4 |
| 26 |
| 6.5 |
| 0 |
| +0.8 |
| Breece Hall | 3 | 3 | 47 | 0 | 8% | +2.8 |
| Xavier Gipson | 1 | 3 | 24 | 0 | 8% | +1.4 |
| Allen Lazard | 1 | 5 | 17 | 0 | 14% | −7.0 |
| C.J. Uzomah | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | +0.1 |
| Malik Taylor | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 5% | −1.9 |
| Dalvin Cook | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.7 |
| Michael Carter | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.7 |
| 2 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Jamien Sherwood | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ahmad Gardner | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quinnen Williams | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
| D.J. Reed | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Solomon Thomas | 1 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Franklin-Myers | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 |
| 116 |
| 4.3 |
| 0 |
| −4.7 |
| DeAndre Carter | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 | +3.1 |
| Tre Tucker | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Zamir White | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Aidan O'Connell | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davante Adams | 6 | 13 | 86 | 0 | 52% | −5.6 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 2 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 8% | +1.0 |
| Michael Mayer | 3 | 5 | 19 | 1 | 20% | +1.2 |
| Josh Jacobs | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 8% | +1.1 |
| Austin Hooper | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 4% | −0.4 |
| Hunter Renfrow | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 4% | −0.2 |
| Ameer Abdullah | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4% | −0.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Divine Deablo | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Robert Spillane | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Nate Hobbs | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jerry Tillery | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jakorian Bennett | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Marcus Epps | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trevon Moehrig | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Jenkins | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Bilal Nichols | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyler Hall | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
