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 · 300s tick · as of 6:29 PM ET · 15 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 14 · Sun, Dec 10, 2023 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 14
It turned at Q3 1:42, 4th and 13, on D.J. Moore — 25.5 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 28–13. Biggest swing: Q3 1:42, Bears +25.5% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 1:42 · 4th and 13
D.J. Moore
Bears
(1:42) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on DET-97-A.Hutchinson, Defensive Offside, declined.
25.5
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Bears won this one — no giveaways, against Lions at 3 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Lions owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 2 trips, against Bears at 2 touchdowns on 6 trips.
Lionsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Bears won this one — +0.23 expected points per dropback, against Lions at -0.16 expected points per dropback.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Lions owned this one and still lost it — 41% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 32% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Lionsthe 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 10.1 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 17 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(1:42) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on DET-97-A.Hutchinson, Defensive Offside, declined.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
D.J. Moore's 38-yard touchdown catch with 1:42 left in the 3rd put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 2 scores that followed.
D.J. Moore38-yd TD catch38-yard touchdown catchfrom Justin Fields · kick blocked by R.OkwaraLead never changed again+613–198 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Lionscategory by categoryBears
Bears ahead 7–1 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: Lions ran 63 snaps at a 62% dropback rate against Bears’s 65 at 63%. Red-zone trips: Lions 2, Bears 6.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.04 expected points added per play vs -0.15.
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.
2 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor in this game, which is under the three this column needs before it will draw the rule. The readings themselves stand.
DET's play-action rate, 5.1%, was the lowest of the 30 team-games charted in week 14 — 1.5 points clear of the next team along.
39 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.0 points. · −1.8σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected, +4.4 pts, is past their previous high of +1.3 pts in week 12 — the highest of their 13 charted games through week 14.
64 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.4 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
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 -25 pts to 18 pts
Over Expected room →Lions-13.1 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −9.1 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (−1.09× that swing) · 63 snaps
Bears4.4 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +9.5 vs their -5.1 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (+1.75× that swing) · 64 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 26% to 79%
Tendencies room →Lions51.2%right on their number · −1.6 vs their 52.7%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−0.15× that swing) · 43 early downs
Bears56.3%inside their normal wobble · +5.2 vs their 51.1%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+0.60× that swing) · 48 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 53%
Tendencies room →Lions5.1%leaned — dropped back clean · −19.6 vs their 24.7%, and they swing ±11.0 week to week (−1.78× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
Bears22.0%right on their number · −1.3 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (−0.18× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -12% to 112%
Fourth Down room →Lions66.7%right on their number · +7.2 vs their 59.4%, and they swing ±19.9 week to week (+0.36× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 39.9%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 63%
Tendencies room →Lions36.6%right on their number · +1.2 vs their 35.4%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (+0.11× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Bears30.8%inside their normal wobble · +9.5 vs their 21.3%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (+0.90× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 39%
Tendencies room →Lions19.5%right on their number · +2.0 vs their 17.5%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+0.23× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Bears17.9%inside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+0.85× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
DET's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 5.1%, 19.6 points below their season mean of 24.7% and 1.8 times their own 11.0-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.
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
19/33, 223 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
2.0 expected points added · -3.4% completion over expected
Passing · DET
20/35, 161 yds, 1 TD, 2 INT
-6.3 expected points added · -10.7% 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.
Josh Reynolds banked 6.0 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 | 26.8 | +4.7 | 92% | 83% | 33% | 41% | 3 car, 20 yd, 1 TD · 6/10, 68 yd, 1 TD |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 24.7 | 0.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/33, 223 yd, 1 TD · 12 car, 58 yd, 1 TD |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Committee Back | 17.2 | +5.7 | 63% | 67% | 12% | 0% | 11 car, 66 yd, 1 TD · 3/4, 16 yd |
| Josh ReynoldsWR · Rotational Receiver | 13.4 | +6.0 | 55% | 59% | 12% | 19% | 3/4, 44 yd, 1 TD |
| Cole KmetTE · Featured Receiver | 11.6 | +1.6 | 85% | 80% | 20% | 17% | 5/6, 66 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 11.5 | +2.6 | 35% | 28% | 9% | 0% | 10 car, 66 yd · 3/3, 19 yd |
| D'Onta ForemanRB · Committee Back | 9.2 | −0.5 | 55% | 46% | 10% | 10% | 11 car, 50 yd · 2/3, 22 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Featured Receiver | 6.4 | −4.2 | 90% | 88% | 23% | 27% | 2/7, 44 yd |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Featured Receiver | 5.1 | −7.3 | 88% | 100% | 24% | 21% | 3/8, 21 yd |
| Sam LaPortaTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.7 | −5.0 | 86% | 90% | 18% | 24% | 1 car, 4 yd · 2/6, 23 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.5 | −1.3 | 35% | 49% | 12% | 8% | 3/4, 15 yd |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 4.4 | −7.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 20/35, 161 yd, 1 TD, 2 INT · 1 car, 0 yd |
| Donovan Peoples-JonesWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.7 | +0.8 | 14% | 18% | 3% | 6% | 1/1, 17 yd |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | −0.1 | 37% | 23% | 6% | 2% | 2/2, 6 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 2.1 | +0.7 | 14% | 15% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Tyler ScottWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | +0.7 | 37% | 41% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Marcedes LewisTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.4 | −0.1 | 25% | 22% | 3% | 0% | 1/1, 4 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB | 0.8 | −1.1 | 17% | 17% | 0% | — | 3 car, 8 yd |
| Khari BlasingameRB | 0.7 | −0.5 | 20% | 7% | 3% | 0% | 1/1, -3 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 0.6 | +0.1 | 28% | 27% | 0% | — | 1 car, 6 yd |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.4 | −3.5 | 58% | 49% | 6% | 26% | 1 car, 4 yd · 0/2, 0 yd |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Trent TaylorWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 14% | 10% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Craig ReynoldsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 3 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 Bears attack right, the Lions 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.
(1:42) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 38 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on DET-97-A.Hutchinson, Defensive Offside, declined.
Q3 1:42 · Bears · 4th & 13 at DET 38 · gained 38 · +6.65 EP · +25.5% win probability
164 snaps placed · 11 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 23 drives, personnel groupings on 164 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.
8 of 23 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 69 yards from the CHI 31 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, DET 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
Lions0
Bears6Lions0Bears7Lions0Bears10Lions6Bears10How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions12Bears10Lions13Bears10Lions13Bears13How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions13Bears19Lions13Bears25Lions13Bears28Win 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: Lions at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 20/35 | 161 | 1 | 2 | 4 | −6.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 10 | 66 | 6.6 | 0 | +3.1 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 11 | 66 | 6.0 | 1 | −1.1 |
| Sam LaPorta | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Reynolds | 3 | 4 | 44 | 1 | 12% | +4.0 |
| Sam LaPorta | 2 | 6 | 23 | 0 | 18% | −0.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Campbell | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alex Anzalone | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Derrick Barnes | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Cominsky |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 19/33 | 223 | 1 | 0 | 3 | +2.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields |
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_14_DET_CHI
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Lions closed -3 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 41 — under by 3.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Jameson Williams | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Jared Goff | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −5.0 |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 3 | 8 | 21 | 0 | 24% | −5.2 |
| David Montgomery | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 9% | +1.7 |
| Donovan Peoples-Jones | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 3% | +3.7 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 3 | 4 | 16 | 0 | 12% | −0.5 |
| Kalif Raymond | 3 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 12% | +0.0 |
| Brock Wright | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6% | −0.5 |
| Jameson Williams | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −2.2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 1.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Kerby Joseph | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Benito Jones | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kindle Vildor | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ifeatu Melifonwu | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brian Branch | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cameron Sutton | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 |
| 58 |
| 4.8 |
| 1 |
| +3.3 |
| D'Onta Foreman | 11 | 50 | 4.5 | 0 | −0.8 |
| D.J. Moore | 3 | 20 | 6.7 | 1 | −1.0 |
| Khalil Herbert | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 6 | 10 | 68 | 1 | 33% | +4.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 5 | 6 | 66 | 0 | 20% | +3.0 |
| Darnell Mooney | 2 | 7 | 44 | 0 | 23% | +0.5 |
| D'Onta Foreman | 2 | 3 | 22 | 0 | 10% | +0.5 |
| Tyler Scott | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 3% | +0.6 |
| Velus Jones | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 3% | +1.1 |
| Marcedes Lewis | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3% | −0.2 |
| Khari Blasingame | 1 | 1 | -3 | 0 | 3% | −1.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaquan Brisker | 9 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Justin Jones | 1 | 5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Terell Smith | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yannick Ngakoue | 1 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zacch Pickens | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
