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 .md to those URLs or by sending Accept: text/markdown; other pages answer 404.
Green Bay Packers 17, Bears 9 — with the result never quite settled.
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
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).
Packers closed -2.5 and covered, winning by 8.
Green Bay Packers 17–9. Biggest swing: Q2 4:01, Bears +12.5% win probability on one snap.
12.5
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
Anders CarlsonBearsQ1 2:39(2:39) 17-A.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-42-M.Orzech, Holder-19-D.Whelan.
9.7pts
Dontayvion WicksBearsQ2 0:11(:11) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short right to 13-D.Wicks to CHI 19 for 3 yards (29-T.Stevenson).
10.8pts
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.
(4:01) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left to 2-D.Moore to GB 17 for 33 yards (37-C.Valentine).
Swing −12.5 for PackersExpected points −3.09 for PackersModel and market agree here.play 54
The solid line is the betting market's home win probability; the dashed line is the play-by-play model's. The shaded band between them is the disagreement — emerald where the model liked the home team more, red where it liked the away team more. Drag across the curve or use arrow keys to replay the game; gold diamonds mark the biggest swings.
Highest-leverage plays
2nd · 4:01GB +12% win prob(4:01) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields pass short left to 2-D.Moore to GB 17 for 33 yards (37-C.Valentine).
2nd · 0:11CHI +11% win prob(:11) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short right to 13-D.Wicks to CHI 19 for 3 yards (29-T.Stevenson).
1st · 2:39CHI +10% win prob(2:39) 17-A.Carlson 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-42-M.Orzech, Holder-19-D.Whelan.
4th · 12:57GB +10% win prob(12:57) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass deep left to 11-J.Reed pushed ob at CHI 13 for 59 yards (4-E.Jackson).
2nd · 2:00CHI +9% win prob(2:00) (Shotgun) 1-J.Fields sacked at GB 21 for -8 yards (97-K.Clark).
1st · 8:59GB +9% win prob(8:59) 8-C.Santos 50 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-48-P.Scales, Holder-16-T.Gill.
2nd · 7:25
SettledThe modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
The margin ledger
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.
Lead
1st8:59Cairo Santos·50-yd field goal50-yard field goalholder T.Gill · snap P.Scales+33–0
2nd7:25Dontayvion Wicks·10-yd TD catch10-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan Lovefrom Jordan LoveLead never changed again+73–7
2nd1:20Cairo Santos·39-yd field goal39-yard field goalholder T.Gill · snap P.Scales+36–7
3rd9:52Dontayvion Wicks·12-yd TD catch12-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan Lovefrom Jordan Love+76–14
4th13:07Cairo Santos·35-yd field goal35-yard field goalholder T.Gill · snap P.Scales+39–14
4th10:57Anders Carlson·25-yd field goal25-yard field goalholder D.Whelan · snap M.Orzech+39–17
6 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Situational splits
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Bears1–8Packers
192Total yards434
4.2Yards per play7.5
41%Success rate55%
27%Third-down rate70%
0Red-zone touchdowns2
2Explosive plays8
12First downs24
5Sacks taken1
0Turnovers1
The read
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
−0.10Bears: −0.10 expected points added per play
+0.24Packers: +0.24 expected points added per play
Dropping backexpected points added per dropback
+0.02Bears: +0.02 expected points added per play
+0.32Packers: +0.32 expected points added per play
Running itexpected points added per rush
−0.22Bears: −0.22 expected points added per play
+0.12Packers: +0.12 expected points added per play
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.
NotePackers 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
The Read
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.
lowest in the league that weekAgainst the weekTendencies
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.
Past their previous low of 7.3% in week 3.
34 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.5 points.
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.
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
Was this normal for them?
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.
their week-to-week swingall 32 teams
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -20 pts to 18 pts
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
NoteCHI'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.
The Game Day Roster
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
58Darnell WrightT · Every snap100%48 snaps
67Dan FeeneyC · Every snap100%48 snaps
76Teven JenkinsT · Every snap100%48 snaps
70Braxton JonesT · Every snap100%48 snaps
1Justin FieldsQB · Full-time98%47 snaps
2D.J. MooreWR · Full-time90%43 snaps
65Cody WhitehairG · Heavy rotation73%35 snaps
85Cole KmetTE · Heavy rotation69%33 snaps
23Roschon JohnsonRB · Heavy rotation50%24 snaps
19Equanimeous St. BrownWR · Heavy rotation50%24 snaps
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 field map
Every snap, where it happened
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.
Bears←Packers→
Q1Q2Q3Q4
J.Fields pass+12% win probabilitymoment 2 of 4
(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.
The Film Room · post-game
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 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.
Possession by possession
The field rail
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.
Every snap
Play stream
139 of 139 plays
Team
Quarter
Down
Play type
Expected points added
Event
Charted
Plays shown
139
EPA per play
+0.07
Success rate
47%
Yards
624
Who was on the field
Personnel groupings
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.
Packers1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR38+0.1768%
Bears1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR28-0.3457%
Packers1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR20+0.3535%
Bears1 RB, 2 TE, 2 WR7+0.1429%
Bears2 RB, 1 TE, 2 WR4——
Bears2 RB, 2 TE, 1 WR3——
Bears1 RB, 3 TE, 1 WR3——
Bears0 RB, 2 TE, 3 WR1——
snapsepapass rate
139 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
Every play
Ball
When
Play
Only
Who
139 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
1st quarter30 plays
Bears3Packers0
Field goal11 plays, from the Bears 31 to the Packers 26
No good13 plays, from the Packers 25 to the Bears 15
The period ended5 plays, from the Bears 31 to the Packers 38
2nd quarter39 plays
Punt2 plays
Bears3Packers6
Bears3Packers7
Touchdown14 plays, from the Packers 8 to the Bears 10
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
FormationShotgunOffense on the fieldOne quarterback, two tight ends and three receiversDefense on the fieldTwo linemen, four linebackers and five backsRoute runDigCoverageCover 1, man with a free safetyMan or zoneManIn the boxFive defendersRushing the passerFourPressure (charted)The passer was kept cleanTime to throw2.8 seconds
Bears6Packers7
Field goal12 plays, from the Bears 34 to the Packers 13
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
FormationShotgunOffense on the fieldOne quarterback, one back, one tight end and three receiversDefense on the fieldFour linemen, two linebackers and five backsRoute runQuick outCoverageCover 2, two deepMan or zoneZoneIn the boxFour defendersRushing the passerFourPressure (charted)The passer was kept cleanTime to throw1.6 seconds
The period ended11 plays, from the Packers 25 to the Bears 22
3rd quarter29 plays
Bears6Packers13
Bears6Packers14
Touchdown11 plays, from the Packers 25 to the Bears 12
Punt9 plays, from the Bears 22 to the Packers 48
Fumble lost6 plays, from the Packers 20 to midfield
The period ended3 plays, from the Bears 42 to the Bears 45
4th quarter41 plays
Bears9Packers14
Field goal6 plays, from the Bears 45 to the Packers 17
Bears9Packers17
Field goal6 plays, from the Packers 28 to the Bears 7
Punt12 plays, from the Bears 32 to the Packers 34
The period ended17 plays, from the Packers 6 to the Bears 31
Win probability is the league play-by-play model, 98.5% of plays · a dash means none was published
