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
2024 Week 13 · Thu, Nov 28, 2024 · Ford Field
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 13
It turned at Q4 0:56, 4th and 14, on Caleb Williams — 27.9 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
Detroit Lions 23–20 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:56, Bears +27.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:56 · 4th and 14
Caleb Williams
Bears
(:56) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass incomplete deep right to 2-D.Moore. PENALTY on DET-29-K.Vildor, Defensive Pass Interference, 29 yards, enforced at CHI 46 - No Play.
27.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Lions won this one — +0.12 expected points per carry, against Bears at -0.10 expected points per carry.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Lions won this one — 46% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 39% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Bears owned this one and still lost it — no giveaways, against Lions at 1 giveaway.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Lions won this one — 9 chunk plays, against Bears at 7 chunk plays.
Lionsthe 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 8.3 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 24 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(:56) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass incomplete deep right to 2-D.Moore. PENALTY on DET-29-K.Vildor, Defensive Pass Interference, 29 yards, enforced at CHI 46 - No Play.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jake Bates's 30-yard field goal with 7:10 left in the 1st put Detroit Lions ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 7 scores that followed.
Jake Bates30-yd field goal30-yard field goalholder J.Fox · snap H.HattenLead never changed again+30–3
Keenan Allen9-yd TD catch9-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb Williams · two-point no good+613–238 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryLions
Lions ahead 7–2 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, ±0.35 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 59 snaps at a 81% dropback rate against Lions’s 69 at 52%. Red-zone trips: Bears 3, Lions 5.
Lions won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.07 expected points added per play vs -0.01.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
12 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.
CHI's early-down pass rate, 78.0%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 13 — 2.0 points clear of the next team along.
41 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.1 points. · +2.0σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected, +7.7 pts, is past their previous high of +4.0 pts in week 12 — the highest of their 12 charted games through week 13.
58 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.4 points. · +1.9σ from their own normal
CHI's blitz rate sent, 41.7%, is past their previous high of 36.4% in week 4 — the highest of their 12 charted games through week 13.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.3 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
CHI's sack or hit rate turned over: 23.7% in week 12 against 11.1% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.7 points. · −1.1σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
12 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 -18 pts to 12 pts
Over Expected room →Bears7.7 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +10.2 vs their -2.5 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (+1.89× that swing) · 58 snaps
Lions-7.3 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.6 vs their -3.7 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 69 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 22% to 85%
Tendencies room →Bears78.0%leaned — passed early · +20.0 vs their 58.0%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (+1.99× that swing) · 41 early downs
Lions44.4%right on their number · −4.5 vs their 48.9%, and they swing ±10.4 week to week (−0.43× that swing) · 54 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 65%
Tendencies room →Bears10.4%leaned — dropped back clean · −7.9 vs their 18.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (−1.38× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
Lions47.2%inside their normal wobble · +10.8 vs their 36.5%, and they swing ±11.1 week to week (+0.97× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -37% to 164%
Fourth Down room →Bears66.7%right on their number · +8.9 vs their 57.7%, and they swing ±25.8 week to week (+0.35× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Lions33.3%inside their normal wobble · −30.0 vs their 63.3%, and they swing ±39.3 week to week (−0.76× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 67%
Tendencies room →Bears41.7%leaned — sent pressure · +15.7 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±9.3 week to week (+1.70× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Lions35.4%right on their number · −0.5 vs their 35.9%, and they swing ±12.1 week to week (−0.04× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 32%
Tendencies room →Bears11.1%leaned — stayed blocked · −6.2 vs their 17.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (−1.08× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Lions18.8%right on their number · +3.2 vs their 15.6%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+0.49× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
CHI's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 78.0%, 20.0 points above their season mean of 58.0% and 2.0 times their own 10.1-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 · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
20/39, 256 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
-1.3 expected points added · -8.3% completion over expected
Passing · DET
21/34, 221 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
7.1 expected points added · -2.6% 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.
Keenan Allen banked 9.7 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 26.1 | +5.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 20/39, 256 yd, 3 TD · 4 car, 39 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Featured Receiver | 24.3 | +9.7 | 96% | 92% | 22% | 25% | 5/8, 73 yd, 2 TD |
| D.J. MooreWR · Alpha Receiver | 23.7 | −4.9 | 97% | 94% | 44% | 39% | 8/16, 97 yd, 1 TD |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 16.9 | −8.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/34, 221 yd, 2 TD · 1 car, 1 yd |
| Sam LaPortaTE · Featured Receiver | 15.6 | −0.8 | 94% | 97% | 19% | 15% | 3/6, 6 yd, 2 TD |
| David MontgomeryRB · Bell Cow Back | 15.4 | −5.3 | 54% | 42% | 10% | 0% | 21 car, 88 yd · 3/3, 36 yd |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Featured Receiver | 12.3 | −2.7 | 94% | 97% | 23% | 41% | 5/7, 73 yd |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Committee Back | 10.4 | −1.5 | 46% | 58% | 13% | 9% | 9 car, 87 yd · 2/4, 17 yd |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Featured Receiver | 9.6 | −4.1 | 79% | 75% | 23% | 21% | 2 car, 18 yd · 5/7, 28 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Bell Cow Back | 9.4 | −0.1 | 69% | 63% | 8% | 3% | 11 car, 39 yd · 2/3, 35 yd |
| Tim PatrickWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.8 | −0.9 | 70% | 72% | 10% | 16% | 2/3, 48 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.6 | −0.3 | 99% | 96% | 8% | 5% | 3/3, 26 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.5 | −5.5 | 78% | 90% | 17% | 28% | 2/6, 25 yd |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.3 | +0.7 | 43% | 36% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 13 yd |
| Collin JohnsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| DeAndre CarterWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Maurice AlexanderWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 4 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 Lions 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.
(:56) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass incomplete deep right to 2-D.Moore. PENALTY on DET-29-K.Vildor, Defensive Pass Interference, 29 yards, enforced at CHI 46 - No Play.
Q4 0:56 · Bears · 4th & 14 at CHI 46 · gained nothing · +3.81 EP · +35.1% win probability
162 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: 174 plays across 19 drives, personnel groupings on 162 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 169. 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.
8 of 19 drives ended in points. The longest march was DET moving 90 yards from the DET 10 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; DET 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.
174 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
174 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears0
Lions3Bears0Lions9Bears0Lions10Bears0Lions13Bears0Lions16Bears6Lions16Bears7Lions16Bears7Lions22Bears7Lions23Bears13Lions23How the play was built
Empty backfield, no huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Bears19Lions23Bears20Lions23How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
From outside the pocket.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the ball was not catchable.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, no huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the second 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: Bears at Lions, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 20/39 | 256 | 3 | 0 | 5 | −1.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 4 | 39 | 9.8 | 0 | +1.8 |
| D'Andre Swift | 11 | 39 | 3.5 | 0 | −1.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 8 | 16 | 97 | 1 | 44% | +1.0 |
| Keenan Allen | 5 | 8 | 73 | 2 | 22% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Byard | 5 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jonathan Owens | 1 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gervon Dexter |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 21/34 | 221 | 2 | 0 | 1 | +7.1 |
| 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/2024_13_CHI_DET
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Lions closed -9.5, won by 3 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 47.5; the game landed 43 — under by 4.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| +6.8 |
| D'Andre Swift | 2 | 3 | 35 | 0 | 8% | −0.6 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 3 | 26 | 0 | 8% | +0.4 |
| Rome Odunze | 2 | 6 | 25 | 0 | 17% | −0.5 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 1.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jack Sanborn | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Terell Smith | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Byron Cowart | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Montgomery | 21 | 88 | 4.2 | 0 | −1.4 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 9 | 87 | 9.7 | 0 | +4.4 |
| Jameson Williams | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Jared Goff | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | +0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 5 | 7 | 73 | 0 | 23% | +1.5 |
| Tim Patrick | 2 | 3 | 48 | 0 | 10% | +3.4 |
| David Montgomery | 3 | 3 | 36 | 0 | 10% | +2.8 |
| Jameson Williams | 5 | 7 | 28 | 0 | 23% | +0.1 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 2 | 4 | 17 | 0 | 13% | −2.8 |
| Brock Wright | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 3% | +0.8 |
| Sam LaPorta | 3 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 19% | −0.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Branch | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Dorsey | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Malcolm Rodriguez | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kerby Joseph | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| D.J. Reader | 2 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kindle Vildor | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Za'Darius Smith | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Campbell | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Alim McNeill | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
