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 2:05 PM ET · 15 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2024 Week 11 · Sun, Nov 17, 2024 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 11
It turned at Q4 0:03, 2nd and 8, on Cairo Santos — 59.7 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 20–19 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:03, Packers +59.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:03 · 2nd and 8
Cairo Santos
Packers
(:03) 8-C.Santos 46 yard field goal is BLOCKED (94-K.Brooks), Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
59.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 9 of 16 on third down, against Packers at 1 of 5 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Packers won this one — +0.59 expected points per dropback, against Bears at +0.20 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Bears owned this one and still lost it — +0.20 expected points per carry, against Packers at -0.01 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Packers won this one — 3 touchdowns on 5 trips, against Bears at 1 touchdown on 3 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 were 18.1 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 31 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(:03) 8-C.Santos 46 yard field goal is BLOCKED (94-K.Brooks), Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jordan Love's 1-yard rushing touchdown with 3:02 left in the 4th put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Jordan Love1-yd TD run1-yard rushing touchdowntwo-point no goodLead never changed again+620–197 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Packerscategory by categoryBears
Packers ahead 5–4 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Bears, 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, ±0.59 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: Packers ran 43 snaps at a 47% dropback rate against Bears’s 69 at 58%. Red-zone trips: Packers 5, Bears 3.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.27 expected points added per play vs 0.20.
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.
1 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 play-action rate turned over: 12.2% in week 10 against 25.0% here — they dropped back clean then and faked the run now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
40 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.7 points. · +1.2σ 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 -29 pts to 13 pts
Over Expected room →Packers-10.6 ptsright on their number · −2.4 vs their -8.2 pts, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (−0.29× that swing) · 42 snaps
Bears-4.4 ptsright on their number · −1.9 vs their -2.5 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−0.35× that swing) · 68 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 8% to 86%
Tendencies room →Packers38.9%right on their number · −5.4 vs their 44.2%, and they swing ±14.1 week to week (−0.38× that swing) · 36 early downs
Bears51.0%inside their normal wobble · −7.0 vs their 58.0%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (−0.69× that swing) · 49 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 56%
Tendencies room →Packers35.0%inside their normal wobble · +10.7 vs their 24.3%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (+0.88× that swing) · 20 dropbacks
Bears25.0%leaned — faked the run · +6.7 vs their 18.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (+1.16× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -19% to 124%
Fourth Down room →Packers—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 33.8%.
Bears75.0%inside their normal wobble · +17.3 vs their 57.7%, and they swing ±25.8 week to week (+0.67× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 50%
Tendencies room →Packers27.5%inside their normal wobble · +4.4 vs their 23.1%, and they swing ±6.2 week to week (+0.71× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
Bears15.0%leaned — sat back · −10.9 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±9.3 week to week (−1.18× that swing) · 20 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 32%
Tendencies room →Packers15.0%right on their number · +1.5 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.8 week to week (+0.22× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
Bears15.0%right on their number · −2.3 vs their 17.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (−0.40× that swing) · 20 dropbacks
CHI's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 15.0%, 10.9 points below their season mean of 25.9% and 1.2 times their own 9.3-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.
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 4 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 4 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
13/17, 261 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
13.1 expected points added · +12.6% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
23/31, 231 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
3.2 expected points added · +6.7% completion over expected
Receiving · GB
4/4 for 150 yds, 0 TD
24% of team targets · 12.0 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Christian Watson banked 12.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh JacobsRB · Bell Cow Back | 23.4 | +5.8 | 80% | 65% | 29% | 0% | 18 car, 76 yd, 1 TD · 4/5, 58 yd |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 20.2 | +5.8 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/17, 261 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 18 yd, 1 TD |
| Christian WatsonWR · Featured Receiver | 19.0 | +12.4 | 67% | 70% | 24% | 73% | 4/4, 150 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 16.4 | +6.8 | 57% | 43% | 6% | 0% | 14 car, 71 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 13 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 16.2 | −0.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 23/31, 231 yd · 9 car, 70 yd |
| D.J. MooreWR · Featured Receiver | 13.7 | +3.3 | 94% | 88% | 23% | 3% | 1 car, 5 yd · 7/7, 62 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.5 | −3.9 | 82% | 80% | 32% | 53% | 6/10, 65 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 11.1 | +0.4 | 42% | 43% | 3% | 1% | 10 car, 33 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 8 yd |
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.8 | +3.4 | 57% | 50% | 12% | 6% | 1 car, -5 yd · 2/2, 23 yd, 1 TD |
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 8.1 | −2.5 | 92% | 85% | 26% | 31% | 4/8, 41 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 7.2 | +1.6 | 97% | 88% | 10% | 13% | 3/3, 42 yd |
| Christopher BrooksRB · Receiving Back | 3.3 | +0.5 | 22% | 25% | 12% | 0% | 2/2, 13 yd |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.7 | −0.6 | 78% | 80% | 12% | 17% | 1/2, 17 yd |
| Emanuel WilsonRB | 1.7 | +0.7 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Tucker KraftTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.8 | 93% | 85% | 6% | 10% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | 35% | 25% | 6% | 3% | 0/1, 0 yd |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 2 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 Packers 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.
(:03) 8-C.Santos 46 yard field goal is BLOCKED (94-K.Brooks), Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
Q4 0:03 · Bears · 2nd & 8 at GB 28 · gained nothing · -2.23 EP · −66.6% win probability
139 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: 152 plays across 14 drives, personnel groupings on 139 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 147. 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.
7 of 14 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 78 yards from the CHI 22 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, GB 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.
152 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
152 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Packers6
Bears0Packers7Bears0Packers7Bears3How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, nobody in motion.
Packers7Bears9Packers7Bears10Packers7Bears13Packers13Bears13Packers14Bears13How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Packers14Bears19How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
From outside the pocket.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
Packers20Bears19How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
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: Packers at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 13/17 | 261 | 1 | 1 | 1 | +13.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jacobs | 18 | 76 | 4.2 | 1 | −0.6 |
| Jordan Love | 4 | 18 | 4.5 | 1 | −0.6 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 0 | +0.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | 4 | 4 | 150 | 0 | 24% | +12.0 |
| Josh Jacobs | 4 | 5 | 58 | 0 | 29% | +2.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier McKinney | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quay Walker | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Javon Bullard |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 23/31 | 231 | 0 | 0 | 3 | +3.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift |
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_11_GB_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
Packers closed -6, won by 1 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 41; the game landed 39 — under by 2.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Jayden Reed | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 0 | −1.4 |
| Jayden Reed | 2 | 2 | 23 | 1 | 12% | +3.0 |
| Romeo Doubs | 1 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 12% | +0.0 |
| Christopher Brooks | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 12% | +0.9 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −0.5 |
| Tucker Kraft | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6% | −4.0 |
| 6 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Edgerrin Cooper | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rashan Gary | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evan Williams | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kingsley Enagbare | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brenton Cox | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 |
| 71 |
| 5.1 |
| 1 |
| −1.3 |
| Caleb Williams | 9 | 70 | 7.8 | 0 | +9.6 |
| Roschon Johnson | 10 | 33 | 3.3 | 1 | +2.2 |
| D.J. Moore | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rome Odunze | 6 | 10 | 65 | 0 | 32% | +0.6 |
| D.J. Moore | 7 | 7 | 62 | 0 | 23% | +2.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 3 | 42 | 0 | 10% | +2.3 |
| Keenan Allen | 4 | 8 | 41 | 0 | 26% | −1.9 |
| D'Andre Swift | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 6% | +0.3 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 3% | +2.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Byard | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 1 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeMarcus Walker | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amen Ogbongbemiga | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Noah Sewell | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Terell Smith | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
