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 11:27 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2024 Week 13 · Sun, Dec 1, 2024 · Mercedes-Benz Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 13
It turned at Q3 1:49, 4th and 5, on Tarheeb Still — 30.8 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 17–13. Biggest swing: Q3 1:49, Chargers +30.8% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 1:49 · 4th and 5
Tarheeb Still
Chargers
(1:49) (Shotgun) 18-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 1-D.Mooney INTERCEPTED by 29-T.Still at LAC 39. 29-T.Still for 61 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
30.8
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Chargers won this one — 1 giveaway, against Falcons at 4 giveaways.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Falcons owned this one and still lost it — 42% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Chargers at 32% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Falconsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Falcons owned this one and still lost it — 1 touchdown on 4 trips, against Chargers at 0 touchdowns on 2 trips.
Falconsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Running the ball
Falcons owned this one and still lost it — -0.18 expected points per carry, against Chargers at -0.33 expected points per carry.
Falconsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
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 8.6 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 14 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Falcons.
(1:49) (Shotgun) 18-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 1-D.Mooney INTERCEPTED by 29-T.Still at LAC 39. 29-T.Still for 61 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Tarheeb Still's 61-yard touchdown with 1:49 left in the 3rd put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 1 score that followed.
Tarheeb Still61-yd defense TD61-yard touchdownthe defense scored it · two-point goodLead never changed again+817–107 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Chargerscategory by categoryFalcons
Falcons ahead 6–2 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: Chargers ran 44 snaps at a 68% dropback rate against Falcons’s 77 at 52%. Red-zone trips: Chargers 2, Falcons 4.
Falcons outgained Chargers 350-192 but lost the turnover battle 4-1. That was the game.
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.
ATL's sack or hit rate, 26.7%, is past their previous high of 18.2% in week 7 — the highest of their 12 charted games through week 13.
30 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.3 points. · +2.1σ from their own normal
LAC's blitz rate sent turned over: 45.8% in week 12 against 15.0% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 3.0 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 10.2 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 -26 pts to 16 pts
Over Expected room →Chargers3.0 ptsinside their normal wobble · +4.6 vs their -1.6 pts, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+0.68× that swing) · 43 snaps
Falcons-10.9 ptsright on their number · −2.9 vs their -8.1 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (−0.43× that swing) · 77 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 19% to 85%
Tendencies room →Chargers64.5%inside their normal wobble · +9.3 vs their 55.2%, and they swing ±11.6 week to week (+0.80× that swing) · 31 early downs
Falcons47.5%right on their number · −1.6 vs their 49.1%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (−0.14× that swing) · 59 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 62%
Tendencies room →Chargers36.7%right on their number · +5.9 vs their 30.7%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (+0.48× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
Falcons20.0%inside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 14.5%, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+0.83× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -31% to 133%
Fourth Down room →Chargers—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 17.9%.
Falcons60.0%right on their number · +9.3 vs their 50.7%, and they swing ±32.2 week to week (+0.29× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 59%
Tendencies room →Chargers15.0%inside their normal wobble · −9.8 vs their 24.8%, and they swing ±10.2 week to week (−0.96× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
Falcons33.3%inside their normal wobble · +6.4 vs their 27.0%, and they swing ±12.4 week to week (+0.51× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 32%
Tendencies room →Chargers10.0%inside their normal wobble · −4.1 vs their 14.1%, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (−0.58× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
Falcons26.7%off script — got home · +15.2 vs their 11.5%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (+2.09× that swing) · 30 dropbacks
ATL's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 26.7%, 15.2 points above their season mean of 11.5% and 2.1 times their own 7.3-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.
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Atlanta Falcons
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · ATL
24/39, 245 yds, 0 TD, 4 INT
-11.6 expected points added · -5.6% completion over expected
Passing · LAC
16/23, 147 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-5.2 expected points added · +1.2% 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.
Ray-Ray McCloud banked 3.0 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijan RobinsonRB · Bell Cow Back | 25.5 | −0.9 | 75% | 73% | 16% | 0% | 26 car, 102 yd, 1 TD · 6/6, 33 yd |
| Ladd McConkeyWR · Alpha Receiver | 20.7 | +1.1 | 63% | 87% | 50% | 69% | 9/12, 117 yd |
| Drake LondonWR · Alpha Receiver | 17.3 | −13.5 | 99% | 98% | 42% | 65% | 1 car, -3 yd · 9/16, 86 yd |
| Ray-Ray McCloudWR · Rotational Receiver | 13.3 | +3.0 | 95% | 98% | 16% | 15% | 1 car, -2 yd · 4/6, 95 yd |
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 8.0 | −3.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 16/23, 147 yd · 5 car, 1 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | −4.8 | 94% | 98% | 16% | 16% | 3/6, 20 yd |
| Gus EdwardsRB | 4.3 | 0.0 | 52% | 43% | 4% | 1% | 6 car, 32 yd · 1/1, 1 yd |
| Josh PalmerWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | +1.0 | 63% | 67% | 4% | 7% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Tyler AllgeierRB | 3.2 | −3.7 | 30% | 30% | 3% | 0% | 8 car, 16 yd · 1/1, 6 yd |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | −3.9 | 67% | 73% | 17% | 14% | 2/4, 12 yd |
| Kirk CousinsQB · Starter QB | 2.1 | −15.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 24/39, 245 yd, 4 INT · 1 car, 3 yd |
| Kimani VidalRB | 2.0 | 0.0 | 26% | 23% | 0% | — | 4 car, 20 yd |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | −0.3 | 26% | 23% | 4% | 0% | 1 car, 3 yd · 1/1, 3 yd |
| Charlie WoernerTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | +0.2 | 58% | 35% | 3% | 1% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| Stone SmarttTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.3 | −2.2 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Scott MatlockRB | 1.2 | −0.3 | 33% | 10% | 4% | 1% | 1/1, 2 yd |
| Tucker FiskTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.1 | −0.4 | 43% | 27% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 1 yd |
| Avery WilliamsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Kyle PittsTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −4.8 | 41% | 65% | 5% | 6% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Will DisslyTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.3 | 63% | 70% | 4% | 8% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Hassan HaskinsRB | -2.0 | −2.3 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
3 players 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 Falcons attack right, the Chargers 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.
(1:49) (Shotgun) 18-K.Cousins pass short right intended for 1-D.Mooney INTERCEPTED by 29-T.Still at LAC 39. 29-T.Still for 61 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q3 1:49 · Falcons · 4th & 5 at LAC 40 · gained nothing · -7.60 EP · −32.3% win probability
152 snaps placed · 10 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 162 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 152 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 157. 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 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was ATL moving 69 yards from the ATL 31 for a opp touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; ATL attacks right, LAC 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.
162 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
162 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Two in the backfield, nobody in motion.
Chargers0
Falcons6Chargers0Falcons7Chargers3Falcons7Chargers6Falcons7Chargers9Falcons7Chargers9Falcons10How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Chargers15Falcons10Chargers17Falcons10How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Chargers17Falcons13How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
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: Chargers at Falcons, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 16/23 | 147 | 0 | 0 | 5 | −5.2 |
| J.K. Scott | 1/1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gus Edwards | 6 | 32 | 5.3 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Kimani Vidal | 4 | 20 | 5.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd McConkey | 9 | 12 | 117 | 0 | 50% | +4.2 |
| Quentin Johnston | 2 | 4 | 12 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Troy Dye | 6 | 8 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daiyan Henley | 3 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Derwin James |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirk Cousins | 24/39 | 245 | 0 | 4 | 1 | −11.6 |
| 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_LAC_ATL
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Chargers closed -1 and covered, winning by 4.
Total closed 47; the game landed 30 — under by 17.0.
Conditions and crew
| Derius Davis | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Justin Herbert | 5 | 1 | 0.2 | 0 | +0.8 |
| Hassan Haskins | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | −5.6 |
| 17% |
| −2.4 |
| Josh Palmer | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 4% | +1.8 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4% | −0.3 |
| Stone Smartt | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 8% | −3.1 |
| Scott Matlock | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4% | −0.4 |
| Gus Edwards | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4% | −0.7 |
| Tucker Fisk | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| Will Dissly | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| 5 |
| 5 |
| 0.0 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Tony Jefferson | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kristian Fulton | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Teair Tart | 3 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Molden | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Poona Ford | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Marcus Maye | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Tarheeb Still | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 2 | 3 |
| Bijan Robinson | 26 | 102 | 3.9 | 1 | +0.1 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 8 | 16 | 2.0 | 0 | −2.8 |
| Kirk Cousins | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Ray-Ray McCloud | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | −2.1 |
| Drake London | 1 | -3 | -3.0 | 0 | −2.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ray-Ray McCloud | 4 | 6 | 95 | 0 | 16% | +4.3 |
| Drake London | 9 | 16 | 86 | 0 | 42% | −5.9 |
| Bijan Robinson | 6 | 6 | 33 | 0 | 16% | +0.4 |
| Darnell Mooney | 3 | 6 | 20 | 0 | 16% | −7.2 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | +0.3 |
| Charlie Woerner | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3% | +0.4 |
| Kyle Pitts | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −2.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Onyemata | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kaden Elliss | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Dee Alford | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Clark Phillips | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lorenzo Carter | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| A.J. Terrell | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Arnold Ebiketie | 3 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Simmons | 0 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kevin King | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kentavius Street | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
