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 11:25 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2023 Week 18 · Sun, Jan 7, 2024 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2023 Week 18
It turned at Q2 4:01, 3rd and 4, on D.J. Moore — 12.5 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 17–9. Biggest swing: Q2 4:01, Bears +12.5% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 4:01 · 3rd and 4
D.J. Moore
Bears
(4:01) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left to 2-D.Moore to GB 17 for 33 yards (37-C.Valentine).
12.5
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Packers won this one — 7 of 10 on third down, against Bears at 3 of 11 on third down.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Packers won this one — 8 chunk plays, against Bears at 2 chunk plays.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Packers won this one — 55% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 41% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Packers won this one — 2 touchdowns on 4 trips, against Bears at 0 touchdowns on 2 trips.
Packersthe 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 saw this game the same way — never more than 5 points apart.
(4:01) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left to 2-D.Moore to GB 17 for 33 yards (37-C.Valentine).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Dontayvion Wicks's 10-yard touchdown catch with 7:25 left in the 2nd put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Dontayvion Wicks10-yd TD catch10-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan LoveLead never changed again+73–76 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 8–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — 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, ±0.35 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: Bears ran 46 snaps at a 52% dropback rate against Packers’s 58 at 59%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Packers 4.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.24 expected points added per play vs -0.10.
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.
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.
CHI's blitz rate sent, 2.9%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 18 — 0.5 points clear of the next team along.
34 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.5 points. · −1.8σ from their own normal
CHI's sack or hit rate turned over: 17.9% in week 17 against 2.9% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.3 of their own weekly swings across the two.
34 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
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 -20 pts to 18 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-12.6 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −7.5 vs their -5.1 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−1.39× that swing) · 46 snaps
Packers5.1 ptsinside their normal wobble · +4.6 vs their 0.4 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+0.70× that swing) · 58 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 27% to 84%
Tendencies room →Bears41.2%leaned — ran early · −9.9 vs their 51.1%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (−1.15× that swing) · 34 early downs
Packers50.0%right on their number · −5.4 vs their 55.4%, and they swing ±11.3 week to week (−0.48× that swing) · 48 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 45%
Tendencies room →Bears16.7%inside their normal wobble · −6.6 vs their 23.3%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (−0.90× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
Packers29.4%inside their normal wobble · +6.2 vs their 23.2%, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (+0.74× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -24% to 108%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 39.9%.
Packers—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 41.7%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 51%
Tendencies room →Bears2.9%leaned — sat back · −18.4 vs their 21.3%, and they swing ±10.5 week to week (−1.75× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Packers12.5%inside their normal wobble · −9.8 vs their 22.3%, and they swing ±11.1 week to week (−0.88× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 32%
Tendencies room →Bears2.9%leaned — stayed blocked · −9.5 vs their 12.4%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (−1.47× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Packers20.8%inside their normal wobble · +4.3 vs their 16.6%, and they swing ±6.0 week to week (+0.71× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
CHI's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 2.9%, 18.4 points below their season mean of 21.3% and 1.8 times their own 10.5-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 7 inactive
Inactive · 7
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
27/32, 316 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
15.1 expected points added · +15.5% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
11/16, 148 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-1.3 expected points added · +2.9% 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.
Dontayvion Wicks banked 10.5 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Featured Receiver | 24.1 | +10.5 | 72% | 79% | 22% | 19% | 6/7, 61 yd, 2 TD |
| Aaron JonesRB · Bell Cow Back | 19.1 | −0.9 | 82% | 74% | 16% | 1% | 22 car, 111 yd · 5/5, 30 yd |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 18.5 | +1.5 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 27/32, 316 yd, 2 TD · 3 car, -1 yd |
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 15.2 | +7.9 | 60% | 76% | 13% | 26% | 4/4, 112 yd |
| Bo MeltonWR · Featured Receiver | 12.6 | −2.4 | 75% | 74% | 22% | 28% | 2 car, 14 yd · 5/7, 62 yd |
| D.J. MooreWR · Alpha Receiver | 10.4 | +1.8 | 90% | 100% | 38% | 23% | 4/6, 64 yd |
| Justin FieldsQB · Starter QB | 8.6 | −3.5 | 98% | — | 0% | — | 11/16, 148 yd · 8 car, 27 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Alpha Receiver | 7.1 | −0.5 | 69% | 75% | 25% | 38% | 3/4, 41 yd |
| Khalil HerbertRB · Committee Back | 6.1 | −2.6 | 48% | 38% | 13% | 0% | 12 car, 28 yd · 2/2, 13 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.1 | +1.9 | 90% | 88% | 9% | 5% | 3/3, 31 yd |
| Malik HeathWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.9 | −2.5 | 38% | 29% | 13% | 12% | 3/4, 9 yd |
| Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.8 | +0.8 | 50% | 58% | 6% | 10% | 1/1, 18 yd |
| Tyler ScottWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | −1.1 | 31% | 38% | 13% | 19% | 1/2, 12 yd |
| Luke MusgraveTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | +0.5 | 15% | 18% | 3% | 3% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 2.0 | −0.8 | 50% | 58% | 0% | — | 5 car, 20 yd |
| Velus JonesRB | 0.0 | — | 23% | 25% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Robert TonyanTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.9 | 33% | 29% | 6% | 12% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Patrick TaylorRB | 0.0 | — | 18% | 26% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.0 | 18% | 21% | 3% | 7% | 0/1, 0 yd |
1 player 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 Packers 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.
(4:01) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left to 2-D.Moore to GB 17 for 33 yards (37-C.Valentine).
Q2 4:01 · Bears · 3rd & 4 at 50 · gained 33 · +3.09 EP · +12.3% win probability
126 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: 139 plays across 13 drives, personnel groupings on 126 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 134. 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 13 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 92 yards from the GB 8 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB 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.
139 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
139 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears3
Packers0Bears3Packers6Bears3Packers7How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears6Packers7How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears6Packers13Bears6Packers14Bears9Packers14Bears9Packers17Win 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 Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Fields | 11/16 | 148 | 0 | 0 | 5 | −1.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khalil Herbert | 12 | 28 | 2.3 | 0 | −4.0 |
| Justin Fields | 8 | 27 | 3.4 | 0 | +1.9 |
| Roschon Johnson |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 4 | 6 | 64 | 0 | 38% | +4.0 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 4 | 41 | 0 | 25% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tremaine Edmunds | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 27/32 | 316 | 2 | 0 | 1 | +15.1 |
| 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_18_CHI_GB
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Packers closed -2.5 and covered, winning by 8.
Total closed 45.5; the game landed 26 — under by 19.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 5 |
| 20 |
| 4.0 |
| 0 |
| −0.9 |
| +1.4 |
| Equanimeous St. Brown | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 6% | +1.3 |
| Khalil Herbert | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13% | +0.1 |
| Tyler Scott | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 13% | +0.2 |
| Robert Tonyan | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −0.5 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Eddie Jackson | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Terell Smith | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominique Robinson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Billings | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Jones | 22 | 111 | 5.0 | 0 | +1.8 |
| Bo Melton | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | +1.0 |
| Jordan Love | 3 | -1 | -0.3 | 0 | −6.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Reed | 4 | 4 | 112 | 0 | 13% | +8.0 |
| Bo Melton | 5 | 7 | 62 | 0 | 22% | +2.4 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 6 | 7 | 61 | 2 | 22% | +4.7 |
| Tucker Kraft | 3 | 3 | 31 | 0 | 9% | +1.2 |
| Aaron Jones | 5 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 16% | +1.5 |
| Luke Musgrave | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 3% | +0.8 |
| Malik Heath | 3 | 4 | 9 | 0 | 13% | −0.9 |
| Romeo Doubs | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.7 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quay Walker | 5 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| De'Vondre Campbell | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Owens | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darnell Savage | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Keisean Nixon | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenny Clark | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaire Alexander | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rashan Gary | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kingsley Enagbare | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
