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.
connecting · reading the slate
Game Center
2023 Week 12 · Mon, Nov 27, 2023 · U.S. Bank Stadium
FinalChicago Bears 12–10 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 1:06, Bears +35.2% win probability on one snap.
The verdict · 2023 Week 12
It turned at Q4 1:06, 3rd and 10, on D.J. Moore — 35.2 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 1:06 · 3rd and 10
D.J. Moore
Bears
(1:06) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep middle to 2-D.Moore to MIN 13 for 36 yards (44-J.Metellus; 24-C.Bynum).
35.2
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Every snap
Bears won this one — -0.12 expected points per snap, against Vikings at -0.51 expected points per snap.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Vikings owned this one and still lost it — 1 touchdown on 2 trips, against Bears at 0 touchdowns on 2 trips.
Vikingsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Bears won this one — 2 giveaways, against Vikings at 4 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Bears won this one — 8 of 17 on third down, against Vikings at 2 of 9 on third down.
Bearsthe 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 2.3 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 9 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(1:06) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep middle to 2-D.Moore to MIN 13 for 36 yards (44-J.Metellus; 24-C.Bynum).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Cairo Santos's 30-yard field goal with 0:13 left in the 4th put Chicago Bears ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Cairo Santos30-yd field goal30-yard field goalholder T.Gill · snap P.ScalesLead never changed again+312–106 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryVikings
Bears ahead 7–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Vikings, 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, ±0.66 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 65 snaps at a 68% dropback rate against Vikings’s 51 at 71%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Vikings 2.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.12 expected points added per play vs -0.51.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
10 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 sack or hit rate, 22.2%, is past their previous high of 20.5% in week 11 — the highest of their 12 charted games through week 12.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points. · +1.5σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected, +1.3 pts, is past their previous high of −0.6 pts in week 2 — the highest of their 12 charted games through week 12.
65 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.4 points. · +1.2σ from their own normal
CHI's early-down pass rate turned over: 38.2% in week 11 against 59.6% here — they ran early then and passed early now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
47 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.6 points. · +1.0σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
10 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 15 pts
Over Expected room →Bears1.3 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +6.4 vs their -5.1 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (+1.18× that swing) · 65 snaps
Vikings-0.1 ptsright on their number · −2.3 vs their 2.2 pts, and they swing ±4.7 week to week (−0.48× that swing) · 51 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 28% to 89%
Tendencies room →Bears59.6%inside their normal wobble · +8.5 vs their 51.1%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+0.98× that swing) · 47 early downs
Vikings62.5%right on their number · +2.7 vs their 59.8%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (+0.23× that swing) · 40 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 4% to 49%
Tendencies room →Bears29.5%inside their normal wobble · +6.3 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (+0.86× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
Vikings16.7%leaned — dropped back clean · −12.9 vs their 29.6%, and they swing ±7.6 week to week (−1.70× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -34% to 108%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 39.9%.
Vikings—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 36.9%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -9% to 98%
Tendencies room →Bears22.2%right on their number · +0.9 vs their 21.3%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (+0.09× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Vikings56.8%right on their number · +4.3 vs their 52.5%, and they swing ±17.1 week to week (+0.25× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 29%
Tendencies room →Bears22.2%leaned — got home · +9.8 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+1.51× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Vikings13.6%right on their number · +0.3 vs their 13.3%, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (+0.06× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
MIN's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 16.7%, 12.9 points below their season mean of 29.6% and 1.7 times their own 7.6-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 · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Minnesota Vikings
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
27/37, 217 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-5.6 expected points added · +7.1% completion over expected
Passing · MIN
22/32, 185 yds, 1 TD, 4 INT
-23.8 expected points added · +2.6% 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.
T.J. Hockenson banked 4.7 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. MooreWR · Alpha Receiver | 22.4 | +3.2 | 93% | 100% | 41% | 65% | 11/13, 114 yd |
| T.J. HockensonTE · Featured Receiver | 16.0 | +4.7 | 80% | 83% | 20% | 19% | 5/6, 50 yd, 1 TD |
| Roschon JohnsonRB · Committee Back | 12.5 | −1.5 | 74% | 75% | 16% | 0% | 10 car, 35 yd · 5/5, 40 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 11.3 | +1.3 | 88% | 91% | 22% | 15% | 7/7, 43 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 10.6 | −7.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 27/37, 217 yd · 12 car, 59 yd |
| Jordan AddisonWR · Alpha Receiver | 9.9 | −8.4 | 96% | 100% | 33% | 61% | 6/10, 39 yd |
| Alexander MattisonRB · Committee Back | 8.3 | +1.1 | 56% | 56% | 7% | 0% | 10 car, 52 yd · 2/2, 11 yd |
| Brandon PowellWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.7 | +3.1 | 65% | 81% | 10% | 10% | 1 car, 2 yd · 3/3, 45 yd |
| K.J. OsbornWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.4 | −0.4 | 85% | 89% | 13% | 13% | 3/4, 34 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 5.8 | +0.2 | 21% | 20% | 6% | 10% | 6 car, 24 yd · 2/2, 14 yd |
| Joshua DobbsQB · Starter QB | 4.5 | −8.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 22/32, 185 yd, 1 TD, 4 INT · 2 car, 11 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | −1.8 | 81% | 86% | 9% | 36% | 2/3, 6 yd |
| C.J. HamRB · Receiving Back | 2.3 | −2.0 | 20% | 22% | 10% | 1% | 2/3, 3 yd |
| Ty ChandlerRB | 2.1 | −2.5 | 33% | 31% | 7% | 0% | 4 car, 8 yd · 1/2, 3 yd |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Khari BlasingameRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Trent TaylorWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | — | — | — | — | 4 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.0 | 27% | 23% | 3% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Kene NwangwuRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
5 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 Vikings 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.
(1:06) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep middle to 2-D.Moore to MIN 13 for 36 yards (44-J.Metellus; 24-C.Bynum).
Q4 1:06 · Bears · 3rd & 10 at MIN 49 · gained 36 · +3.37 EP · +35.5% win probability
147 snaps placed · 12 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 159 plays across 21 drives, personnel groupings on 147 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 154. 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.
6 of 21 drives ended in points. The longest march was MIN moving 77 yards from the MIN 23 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; MIN 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.
159 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
159 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown, from outside the pocket.
Bears3
Vikings0How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Bears3Vikings3Bears6Vikings3Bears9Vikings3How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
Bears9Vikings9Bears9Vikings10How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
From outside the pocket.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears12Vikings10How the play was built
A trick play, a man in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
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: Bears at Vikings, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 27/37 | 217 | 0 | 0 | 3 | −5.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 12 | 59 | 4.9 | 0 | −3.9 |
| Roschon Johnson | 10 | 35 | 3.5 | 0 | −1.4 |
| Khalil Herbert | 6 | 24 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 11 | 13 | 114 | 0 | 41% | +3.4 |
| Cole Kmet | 7 | 7 | 43 | 0 | 22% | +4.2 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 5 | 40 | 0 | 16% | −0.1 |
| Khalil Herbert | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 6% | +0.1 |
| Darnell Mooney | 2 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 9% | −0.8 |
| Trent Taylor | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.5 |
| Robert Tonyan | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terell Smith | 8 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kyler Gordon | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Jack Sanborn | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeMarcus Walker | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua Dobbs | 22/32 | 185 | 1 | 4 | 2 | −23.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alexander Mattison | 10 | 52 | 5.2 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Joshua Dobbs | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Ty Chandler | 4 | 8 | 2.0 | 0 | −1.6 |
| Brandon Powell | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T.J. Hockenson | 5 | 6 | 50 | 1 | 20% | −2.0 |
| Brandon Powell | 3 | 3 | 45 | 0 | 10% | +1.5 |
| Jordan Addison | 6 | 10 | 39 | 0 | 33% | −6.8 |
| K.J. Osborn | 3 | 4 | 34 | 0 | 13% | −1.7 |
| Alexander Mattison | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 7% | −0.1 |
| Ty Chandler | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 7% | −2.2 |
| C.J. Ham | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 10% | −6.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Metellus | 5 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Ivan Pace | 6 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Danielle Hunter | 5 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Camryn Bynum | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mekhi Blackmon | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Murphy | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| D.J. Wonnum | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Harrison Phillips | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sheldon Day | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| K.J. Osborn | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
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_12_CHI_MIN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Vikings closed -3 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 43.5; the game landed 22 — under by 21.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
