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.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 10:09 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 16 · Sat, Dec 23, 2023 · SoFi Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 16
It turned at Q4 7:19, 1st and 10, on James Cook — 22.9 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Buffalo Bills 24–22 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 7:19, Chargers +22.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 7:19 · 1st and 10
James Cook
Chargers
(7:19) 4-J.Cook up the middle to BUF 30 for 5 yards (32-A.Gilman). FUMBLES (32-A.Gilman), touched at BUF 30, RECOVERED by LAC-95-N.Williams at BUF 32.
22.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Chargers owned this one and still lost it — no giveaways, against Bills at 2 giveaways.
Chargersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Bills won this one — +0.43 expected points per dropback, against Chargers at -0.04 expected points per dropback.
Billsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Bills won this one — 5 of 10 on third down, against Chargers at 4 of 14 on third down.
Billsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Bills won this one — +0.07 expected points per snap, against Chargers at -0.09 expected points per snap.
Billsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
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 28.4 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 48 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Chargers.
(7:19) 4-J.Cook up the middle to BUF 30 for 5 yards (32-A.Gilman). FUMBLES (32-A.Gilman), touched at BUF 30, RECOVERED by LAC-95-N.Williams at BUF 32.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Tyler Bass's 29-yard field goal with 0:31 left in the 4th put Buffalo Bills ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Tyler Bass29-yd field goal29-yard field goalholder S.Martin · snap R.FergusonLead never changed again+324–2210 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Billscategory by categoryChargers
Bills ahead 6–2 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Chargers, in 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, ±0.43 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: Bills ran 52 snaps at a 44% dropback rate against Chargers’s 65 at 60%. Red-zone trips: Bills 4, Chargers 3.
Bills won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.07 expected points added per play vs -0.09.
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.
BUF's pass rate over expected, −16.1 pts, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 16 — 7.6 points clear of the next team along.
52 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.2 points. · −1.8σ from their own normal
BUF's early-down pass rate, 35.7%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 16 — 5.1 points clear of the next team along.
42 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 14.5 points. · −1.4σ from their own normal
LAC's sack or hit rate, 4.3%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 16 — 0.5 points clear of the next team along.
23 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.9 points. · −1.3σ 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 -23 pts to 24 pts
Over Expected room →Bills-16.1 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −16.3 vs their 0.3 pts, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (−1.77× that swing) · 52 snaps
Chargers-2.5 ptsright on their number · −3.2 vs their 0.7 pts, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (−0.42× that swing) · 65 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 19% to 93%
Tendencies room →Bills35.7%leaned — ran early · −20.1 vs their 55.8%, and they swing ±14.5 week to week (−1.39× that swing) · 42 early downs
Chargers52.9%inside their normal wobble · −7.4 vs their 60.3%, and they swing ±9.1 week to week (−0.81× that swing) · 51 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 46%
Tendencies room →Bills21.7%right on their number · +1.6 vs their 20.1%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (+0.16× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
Chargers30.8%leaned — faked the run · +10.4 vs their 20.3%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (+1.44× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -65% to 161%
Fourth Down room →Bills—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 48.3%.
Chargers—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 38.2%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 56%
Tendencies room →Bills30.8%inside their normal wobble · +7.0 vs their 23.8%, and they swing ±9.9 week to week (+0.70× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
Chargers39.1%inside their normal wobble · +9.3 vs their 29.8%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (+0.91× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 36%
Tendencies room →Bills15.4%right on their number · −1.8 vs their 17.2%, and they swing ±7.5 week to week (−0.25× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
Chargers4.3%leaned — stayed blocked · −9.1 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.9 week to week (−1.32× that swing) · 23 dropbacks
BUF's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: -16.1 pts, 16.3 points below their season mean of 0.3 pts and 1.8 times their own 9.2-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.
Buffalo Bills
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · BUF
15/21, 237 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
10.0 expected points added · +8.0% completion over expected
Passing · LAC
23/33, 215 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-1.1 expected points added · +1.1% 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.
Gabe Davis banked 11.0 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh AllenQB · Starter QB | 25.0 | +6.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 15/21, 237 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 5 car, 15 yd, 2 TD |
| Gabe DavisWR | 23.0 | +11.0 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. |
| Easton StickQB · Starter QB | 17.1 | −6.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/33, 215 yd · 7 car, 25 yd, 1 TD |
| Austin EkelerRB · Committee Back | 11.6 | −1.9 | 64% | 62% | 13% | 0% | 15 car, 65 yd · 3/4, 21 yd |
| Gerald EverettTE · Alpha Receiver | 11.2 | −2.9 | 70% | 82% | 25% | 10% | 7/8, 42 yd |
| Josh PalmerWR · Alpha Receiver | 9.7 | −3.9 | 93% | 100% | 25% | 21% | 5/8, 47 yd |
| Stefon DiggsWR · Alpha Receiver | 7.9 | −5.9 | 60% | 78% | 38% | 41% | 5/8, 29 yd |
| Khalil ShakirWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.5 | +2.9 | 58% | 65% | 14% | 6% | 3/3, 45 yd |
| Alex EricksonWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.1 | +2.0 | 53% | 56% | 6% | 9% | 2/2, 31 yd |
| James CookRB · Bell Cow Back | 5.0 | −6.7 | 75% | 65% | 0% | — | 20 car, 70 yd |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | −4.9 | 83% | 79% | 16% | 42% | 1 car, 1 yd · 2/5, 29 yd |
| Dawson KnoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.6 | +1.2 | 47% | 48% | 10% | 5% | 2/2, 26 yd |
| Stone SmarttTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.3 | +1.4 | 31% | 21% | 3% | 9% | 1/1, 23 yd |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.4 | +0.2 | 21% | 21% | 3% | 1% | 1 car, 8 yd · 1/1, 6 yd |
| Jalen GuytonWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | −1.1 | 24% | 31% | 6% | 8% | 1/2, 12 yd |
| Leonard FournetteRB | 2.0 | −4.0 | 18% | 13% | 0% | — | 5 car, 20 yd |
| Dalton KincaidTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | −1.0 | 42% | 52% | 10% | 1% | 1/2, 7 yd |
| Isaiah SpillerRB | 1.5 | −0.8 | 24% | 26% | 3% | 0% | 2 car, 1 yd · 1/1, 4 yd |
| Reggie GilliamRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Deonte HartyWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 4 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Scott MatlockRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Joshua KelleyRB | -0.2 | −0.7 | 11% | 13% | 0% | — | 1 car, -2 yd |
4 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 Chargers attack right, the Bills 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.
(7:19) 4-J.Cook up the middle to BUF 30 for 5 yards (32-A.Gilman). FUMBLES (32-A.Gilman), touched at BUF 30, RECOVERED by LAC-95-N.Williams at BUF 32.
Q4 7:19 · Bills · 1st & 10 at BUF 25 · gained 5 · -5.15 EP · −28.6% win probability
157 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: 169 plays across 22 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 164. 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.
10 of 22 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 90 yards from the LAC 8 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LAC attacks right, BUF 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.
169 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
169 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bills0
Chargers3Bills0Chargers9Bills0Chargers10Bills6Chargers10Bills7Chargers10Bills13Chargers10Bills14Chargers10Bills14Chargers13How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bills20Chargers13Bills21Chargers13Bills21Chargers16How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bills21Chargers19How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
Bills21Chargers22How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket.
Bills24Chargers22How the play was built
A man in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
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: Bills at Chargers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Allen | 15/21 | 237 | 1 | 1 | 1 | +10.0 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| James Cook | 20 | 70 | 3.5 | 0 | −8.5 |
| Leonard Fournette | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Josh Allen |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabe Davis | 4 | 6 | 130 | 1 | 29% | +7.3 |
| Khalil Shakir | 3 | 3 | 45 | 0 | 14% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Benford | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Taylor Rapp | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gregory Rousseau |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easton Stick | 23/33 | 215 | 0 | 0 | 5 | −1.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|
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_16_BUF_LAC
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Bills closed -13, won by 2 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 46 — over by 1.5.
Conditions and crew
| 5 |
| 15 |
| 3.0 |
| 2 |
| +2.0 |
| +4.8 |
| Stefon Diggs | 5 | 8 | 29 | 0 | 38% | −0.8 |
| Dawson Knox | 2 | 2 | 26 | 0 | 10% | +1.6 |
| Dalton Kincaid | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 10% | −1.5 |
| 4 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Terrel Bernard | 4 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rasul Douglas | 5 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Taron Johnson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Jordan Poyer | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Linval Joseph | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrel Dodson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ed Oliver | 2 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Ekeler | 15 | 65 | 4.3 | 0 | −1.0 |
| Easton Stick | 7 | 25 | 3.6 | 1 | −1.3 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Quentin Johnston | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Isaiah Spiller | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | −1.5 |
| Joshua Kelley | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | −1.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Palmer | 5 | 8 | 47 | 0 | 25% | −1.7 |
| Gerald Everett | 7 | 8 | 42 | 0 | 25% | +2.2 |
| Alex Erickson | 2 | 2 | 31 | 0 | 6% | +2.8 |
| Quentin Johnston | 2 | 5 | 29 | 0 | 16% | +1.0 |
| Stone Smartt | 1 | 1 | 23 | 0 | 3% | +2.5 |
| Austin Ekeler | 3 | 4 | 21 | 0 | 13% | −0.4 |
| Jalen Guyton | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 6% | +0.8 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | −0.3 |
| Isaiah Spiller | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3% | −0.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derwin James | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylinn Hawkins | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Nicholas Williams | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Murray | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tuli Tuipulotu | 3 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Michael Davis | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alohi Gilman | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Otito Ogbonnia | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Kendricks | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
