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 6:41 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2024 Week 3 · Mon, Sep 23, 2024 · Paycor Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 3
It turned at Q2 2:57, 2nd and 5, on Terry McLaurin — 11.6 win-probability points to the Commanders on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Washington Commanders 38–33. Biggest swing: Q2 2:57, Commanders +11.6% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 2:57 · 2nd and 5
Terry McLaurin
Commanders
(2:57) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 5-J.Daniels pass deep left to 17-T.McLaurin to CIN 4 for 55 yards (29-C.Taylor-Britt).
11.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Explosive plays
Bengals owned this one and still lost it — 9 chunk plays, against Commanders at 4 chunk plays.
Bengalsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Commanders won this one — +0.77 expected points per dropback, against Bengals at +0.39 expected points per dropback.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Commanders won this one — 3 touchdowns on 5 trips, against Bengals at 2 touchdowns on 6 trips.
Commandersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Commanders won this one — +0.52 expected points per snap, against Bengals at +0.37 expected points per snap.
Commandersthe 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 11.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 20 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Commanders.
(2:57) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 5-J.Daniels pass deep left to 17-T.McLaurin to CIN 4 for 55 yards (29-C.Taylor-Britt).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Austin Ekeler's 24-yard rushing touchdown with 11:38 left in the 2nd put Washington Commanders ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 9 scores that followed.
12 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Commanderscategory by categoryBengals
Bengals ahead 5–2 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — explosive plays.
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, ±0.77 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: Commanders ran 55 snaps at a 55% dropback rate against Bengals’s 61 at 69%. Red-zone trips: Commanders 5, Bengals 6.
Commanders won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.52 expected points added per play vs 0.37.
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.
WAS's pass rate over expected turned over: −5.5 pts in week 2 against +6.4 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
55 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
CIN's blitz rate sent turned over: 12.5% in week 2 against 36.7% here — they sat back then and sent pressure now, a turn of 2.6 of their own weekly swings across the two.
30 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.2 points. · +1.0σ 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 -15 pts to 25 pts
Over Expected room →Commanders6.4 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +6.7 vs their -0.3 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (+1.24× that swing) · 55 snaps
Bengals0.1 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −7.8 vs their 7.9 pts, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−1.20× that swing) · 60 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 29% to 84%
Tendencies room →Commanders51.2%right on their number · −4.0 vs their 55.1%, and they swing ±10.2 week to week (−0.39× that swing) · 43 early downs
Bengals65.3%right on their number · +3.2 vs their 62.1%, and they swing ±8.1 week to week (+0.39× that swing) · 49 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 50%
Tendencies room →Commanders23.3%right on their number · −2.7 vs their 26.1%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (−0.30× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
Bengals14.3%inside their normal wobble · −4.0 vs their 18.3%, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−0.70× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -26% to 126%
Fourth Down room →Commanders75.0%inside their normal wobble · +23.3 vs their 51.7%, and they swing ±29.2 week to week (+0.80× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Bengals—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 45.8%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 3% to 65%
Tendencies room →Commanders23.8%leaned — sat back · −13.1 vs their 36.9%, and they swing ±10.7 week to week (−1.22× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
Bengals36.7%inside their normal wobble · +8.9 vs their 27.7%, and they swing ±9.2 week to week (+0.97× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 36%
Tendencies room →Commanders9.5%inside their normal wobble · −4.9 vs their 14.4%, and they swing ±6.1 week to week (−0.81× that swing) · 42 dropbacks
Bengals10.0%inside their normal wobble · −5.3 vs their 15.3%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−0.66× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
WAS's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: 6.4 pts, 6.7 points above their season mean of -0.3 pts and 1.2 times their own 5.4-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.
Washington Commanders
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Cincinnati Bengals
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · CIN
29/38, 324 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
16.0 expected points added · +9.2% completion over expected
Passing · WAS
21/23, 254 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
21.6 expected points added · +28.4% 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.
Ja'Marr Chase banked 16.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Marr ChaseWR · Featured Receiver | 29.8 | +16.4 | 98% | 100% | 18% | 33% | 6/7, 118 yd, 2 TD |
| Jayden DanielsQB · Starter QB | 28.1 | +4.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/23, 254 yd, 2 TD · 12 car, 39 yd, 1 TD |
| Joe BurrowQB · Starter QB | 25.4 | +3.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 29/38, 324 yd, 3 TD · 1 car, 4 yd |
| Zack MossRB · Bell Cow Back | 20.7 | +1.8 | 76% | 83% | 16% | 6% | 12 car, 58 yd, 1 TD · 5/6, 39 yd |
| Terry McLaurinWR · Alpha Receiver | 20.0 | +7.2 | 85% | 93% | 26% | 69% | 4/6, 100 yd, 1 TD |
| Andrei IosivasWR · Featured Receiver | 16.2 | +2.3 | 77% | 81% | 18% | 23% | 5/7, 52 yd, 1 TD |
| Austin EkelerRB | 13.7 | +9.3 | 22% | 27% | 9% | 0% | 3 car, 35 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 22 yd |
| Brian RobinsonRB · Committee Back | 10.7 | −8.7 | 76% | 70% | 4% | 0% | 16 car, 33 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 4 yd |
| Chase BrownRB | 8.9 | +0.9 | 24% | 17% | 8% | 0% | 7 car, 62 yd · 2/3, 7 yd |
| Zach ErtzTE · Featured Receiver | 8.8 | +0.8 | 64% | 83% | 22% | 15% | 5/5, 38 yd |
| Mike GesickiTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.7 | −0.2 | 50% | 52% | 13% | 17% | 4/5, 47 yd |
| Luke McCaffreyWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.4 | +2.7 | 34% | 33% | 13% | 13% | 3/3, 44 yd |
| Tee HigginsWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.9 | −7.6 | 90% | 95% | 16% | 22% | 3/6, 39 yd |
| Erick AllTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.2 | +0.4 | 34% | 29% | 11% | 2% | 4/4, 22 yd |
| Noah BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.9 | −0.5 | 58% | 57% | 13% | 9% | 3/3, 29 yd |
| Dyami BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.6 | +0.5 | 22% | 23% | 9% | 0% | 2/2, 16 yd |
| Jeremy McNicholsRB | 0.1 | −0.4 | 14% | 17% | 0% | — | 1 car, 1 yd |
| Trayveon WilliamsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
1 player played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 1 line has no expected-points read and sits 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 Bengals attack right, the Commanders 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.
(7:39) (Shotgun) 5-J.Daniels pass short right to 12-L.McCaffrey pushed ob at CIN 2 for 30 yards (22-G.Stone).
Q1 7:39 · Commanders · 4th & 2 at CIN 32 · gained 30 · +4.71 EP · +12.2% win probability
150 snaps placed · 14 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 164 plays across 15 drives, personnel groupings on 150 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 159. 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.
12 of 15 drives ended in points. The longest march was CIN moving 78 yards from the CIN 22 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CIN attacks right, WAS 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.
164 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
164 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Commanders0
Bengals6Commanders0Bengals7How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Commanders6Bengals7Commanders7Bengals7Commanders13Bengals7Commanders14Bengals7Commanders14Bengals10Commanders20Bengals10Commanders21Bengals10Commanders21Bengals13Commanders27Bengals13Commanders28Bengals13Commanders28Bengals19Commanders28Bengals20Commanders31Bengals20How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
Commanders31Bengals26Commanders37Bengals26Commanders38Bengals26Commanders38Bengals32Commanders38Bengals33Win 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: Commanders at Bengals, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Daniels | 21/23 | 254 | 2 | 0 | 2 | +21.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Daniels | 12 | 39 | 3.3 | 1 | +3.3 |
| Austin Ekeler | 3 | 35 | 11.7 | 1 | +3.1 |
| Brian Robinson |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terry McLaurin | 4 | 6 | 100 | 1 | 26% | +8.1 |
| Luke McCaffrey | 3 | 3 | 44 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bobby Wagner | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Frankie Luvu | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Benjamin St-Juste |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Burrow | 29/38 | 324 | 3 | 0 | 2 | +16.0 |
| 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/2024_03_WAS_CIN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Bengals closed -7.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 46; the game landed 71 — over by 25.0.
Conditions and crew
| 16 |
| 33 |
| 2.1 |
| 1 |
| −1.4 |
| Jeremy McNichols | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| 13% |
| +5.7 |
| Zach Ertz | 5 | 5 | 38 | 0 | 22% | +4.7 |
| Noah Brown | 3 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 13% | +3.3 |
| Austin Ekeler | 2 | 2 | 22 | 0 | 9% | +2.1 |
| Dyami Brown | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 9% | −0.5 |
| Brian Robinson | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4% | −0.0 |
| Trenton Scott | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4% | +0.9 |
| 4 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Mike Sainristil | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Quan Martin | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Percy Butler | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Noah Igbinoghene | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeremy Chinn | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jer'Zhan Newton | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamin Davis | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chase Brown | 7 | 62 | 8.9 | 0 | +3.3 |
| Zack Moss | 12 | 58 | 4.8 | 1 | +2.6 |
| Joe Burrow | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Marr Chase | 6 | 7 | 118 | 2 | 18% | +8.4 |
| Andrei Iosivas | 5 | 7 | 52 | 1 | 18% | +6.2 |
| Mike Gesicki | 4 | 5 | 47 | 0 | 13% | +1.6 |
| Zack Moss | 5 | 6 | 39 | 0 | 16% | +1.0 |
| Tee Higgins | 3 | 6 | 39 | 0 | 16% | +1.2 |
| Erick All | 4 | 4 | 22 | 0 | 11% | +1.1 |
| Chase Brown | 2 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 8% | −1.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vonn Bell | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Germaine Pratt | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Logan Wilson | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dax Hill | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geno Stone | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Akeem Davis-Gaither | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sam Hubbard | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Taylor-Britt | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zach Carter | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Jay Tufele | 0 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
