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 14 · Thu, Dec 5, 2024 · Ford Field
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 14
It turned at Q4 6:32, 2nd and 10, on Dontayvion Wicks — 14.8 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Detroit Lions 34–31 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 6:32, Packers +14.8% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 6:32 · 2nd and 10
Dontayvion Wicks
Packers
(6:32) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short middle to 13-D.Wicks to DET 19 for 26 yards (31-K.Joseph). DET-32-B.Branch was injured during the play.
14.8
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Lions won this one — 7 of 15 on third down, against Packers at 1 of 5 on third down.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Packers owned this one and still lost it — +0.12 expected points per carry, against Lions at -0.24 expected points per carry.
Packersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Packers owned this one and still lost it — 7 chunk plays, against Lions at 5 chunk plays.
Packersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Lions won this one — +0.29 expected points per dropback, against Packers at +0.15 expected points per dropback.
Lionsthe 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 2.6 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 11 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Packers.
(6:32) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short middle to 13-D.Wicks to DET 19 for 26 yards (31-K.Joseph). DET-32-B.Branch was injured during the play.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jake Bates's 35-yard field goal with 0:02 left in the 4th put Detroit Lions ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Jake Bates35-yd field goal35-yard field goalholder J.Fox · snap H.HattenLead never changed again+331–3411 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Packerscategory by categoryLions
Lions ahead 4–2 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
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: Packers ran 44 snaps at a 55% dropback rate against Lions’s 76 at 57%. Red-zone trips: Packers 5, Lions 5.
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.
DET's sack or hit rate, 29.2%, was the highest of the 26 team-games charted in week 14 — 0.6 points clear of the next team along.
24 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points. · +2.1σ from their own normal
DET's blitz rate sent, 58.3%, was the highest of the 26 team-games charted in week 14 — 5.4 points clear of the next team along.
24 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.1 points. · +1.9σ from their own normal
GB's blitz rate sent, 37.2%, is past their previous high of 30.4% in week 9 — the highest of their 13 charted games through week 14.
43 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.2 points. · +2.3σ 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-6.1 ptsright on their number · +2.1 vs their -8.2 pts, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (+0.25× that swing) · 44 snaps
Lions-1.6 ptsright on their number · +2.1 vs their -3.7 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (+0.36× that swing) · 76 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 8% to 80%
Tendencies room →Packers48.7%right on their number · +4.5 vs their 44.2%, and they swing ±14.1 week to week (+0.32× that swing) · 39 early downs
Lions55.4%inside their normal wobble · +6.5 vs their 48.9%, and they swing ±10.4 week to week (+0.62× that swing) · 56 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 66%
Tendencies room →Packers37.5%leaned — faked the run · +13.2 vs their 24.3%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (+1.08× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
Lions41.9%right on their number · +5.4 vs their 36.5%, and they swing ±11.1 week to week (+0.48× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -37% to 164%
Fourth Down room →Packers—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 33.8%.
Lions100.0%inside their normal wobble · +36.7 vs their 63.3%, and they swing ±39.3 week to week (+0.93× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 5% to 67%
Tendencies room →Packers37.2%off script — sent pressure · +14.1 vs their 23.1%, and they swing ±6.2 week to week (+2.26× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Lions58.3%leaned — sent pressure · +22.4 vs their 35.9%, and they swing ±12.1 week to week (+1.85× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 32%
Tendencies room →Packers7.0%inside their normal wobble · −6.5 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.8 week to week (−0.95× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Lions29.2%off script — got home · +13.6 vs their 15.6%, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+2.08× that swing) · 24 dropbacks
GB's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 37.2%, 14.1 points above their season mean of 23.1% and 2.3 times their own 6.2-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 · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · DET
32/41, 283 yds, 3 TD, 1 INT
11.8 expected points added · +5.5% completion over expected
Passing · GB
12/20, 206 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
6.7 expected points added · +2.5% completion over expected
Receiving · GB
4/7 for 114 yds, 0 TD
37% of team targets · -0.2 expected points added
Receiving · DET
5/8 for 80 yds, 0 TD
20% of team targets · 1.7 expected points added
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.
Josh Jacobs banked 11.8 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 | 24.6 | +11.8 | 80% | 67% | 0% | — | 18 car, 66 yd, 3 TD |
| Tim PatrickWR · Rotational Receiver | 22.3 | +5.1 | 66% | 63% | 18% | 18% | 6/7, 43 yd, 2 TD |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 22.0 | −7.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 32/41, 283 yd, 3 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 7 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 19.4 | −2.9 | 45% | 44% | 13% | 0% | 14 car, 51 yd, 1 TD · 5/5, 33 yd |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Committee Back | 19.3 | −2.5 | 56% | 58% | 15% | 0% | 15 car, 43 yd · 6/6, 30 yd, 1 TD |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 14.5 | −1.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 12/20, 206 yd, 1 TD · 4 car, 23 yd |
| Christian WatsonWR · Alpha Receiver | 13.4 | +1.1 | 92% | 92% | 37% | 49% | 4/7, 114 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Alpha Receiver | 13.1 | +1.9 | 88% | 96% | 26% | 19% | 3/5, 41 yd, 1 TD |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Featured Receiver | 13.0 | −1.5 | 69% | 74% | 20% | 31% | 5/8, 80 yd |
| Sam LaPortaTE · Rotational Receiver | 10.4 | −4.4 | 90% | 93% | 18% | 25% | 5/7, 54 yd |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Rotational Receiver | 10.3 | −1.3 | 85% | 84% | 15% | 20% | 1 car, 10 yd · 5/6, 43 yd |
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Alpha Receiver | 8.9 | +0.5 | 78% | 75% | 26% | 29% | 4/5, 49 yd |
| Ben SimsTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.2 | −1.8 | 36% | 33% | 5% | 1% | 1/1, 2 yd |
| Emanuel WilsonRB | 0.7 | +0.2 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Christopher BrooksRB | 0.3 | −0.2 | 28% | 33% | 0% | — | 1 car, 3 yd |
| Maurice AlexanderWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.6 | 61% | 58% | 3% | 11% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 50% | 63% | 5% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
2 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 Lions 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.
(12:29) (Shotgun) 16-J.Goff pass short right intended for 17-T.Patrick INTERCEPTED by 25-K.Nixon at DET 32. 25-K.Nixon ran ob at DET 16 for 16 yards (16-J.Goff).
Q3 12:29 · Lions · 2nd & 14 at DET 26 · gained nothing · -5.82 EP · −16.5% win probability
161 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: 175 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 161 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 170. 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.
11 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was DET moving 70 yards from the DET 30 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; DET 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.
175 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
175 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Packers0
Lions6Packers0Lions7Packers0Lions10Packers6Lions10Packers7Lions10Packers7Lions16Packers7Lions17How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers13Lions17Packers14Lions17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Packers20Lions17Packers21Lions17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Packers21Lions23Packers21Lions24How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Packers27Lions24Packers28Lions24Packers28Lions30Packers28Lions31How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read.
Packers31Lions31How the play was built
Three in the backfield, a man in motion.
Packers31Lions34Win 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 Lions, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 12/20 | 206 | 1 | 0 | 1 | +6.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jacobs | 18 | 66 | 3.7 | 3 | +1.6 |
| Jordan Love | 4 | 23 | 5.8 | 0 | +1.8 |
| Emanuel Wilson |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | 4 | 7 | 114 | 0 | 37% | −0.2 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 4 | 5 | 49 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isaiah McDuffie | 3 | 11 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 3 | 7 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Quay Walker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 32/41 | 283 | 3 | 1 | 1 | +11.8 |
| 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_14_GB_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 -3 and it landed exactly on the number — a push.
Total closed 53; the game landed 65 — over by 12.0.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 1 |
| 7 |
| 7.0 |
| 0 |
| +0.3 |
| Christopher Brooks | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| 26% |
| +1.7 |
| Tucker Kraft | 3 | 5 | 41 | 1 | 26% | +3.6 |
| Ben Sims | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5% | −0.1 |
| Jayden Reed | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −0.9 |
| 5 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Kenny Clark | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xavier McKinney | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zayne Anderson | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Devonte Wyatt | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colby Wooden | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Bullard | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lukas Van Ness | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Montgomery | 14 | 51 | 3.6 | 1 | +0.2 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 15 | 43 | 2.9 | 0 | −9.6 |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | +0.6 |
| Jared Goff | 4 | 7 | 1.8 | 0 | +1.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jameson Williams | 5 | 8 | 80 | 0 | 20% | +1.7 |
| Sam LaPorta | 5 | 7 | 54 | 0 | 18% | +2.8 |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 5 | 6 | 43 | 0 | 15% | +2.0 |
| Tim Patrick | 6 | 7 | 43 | 2 | 18% | +0.9 |
| David Montgomery | 5 | 5 | 33 | 0 | 13% | +1.7 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 6 | 6 | 30 | 1 | 15% | +5.4 |
| Brock Wright | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Campbell | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Al-Quadin Muhammad | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carlton Davis | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Myles Adams | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kerby Joseph | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trevor Nowaske | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brian Branch | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Terrion Arnold | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jared Goff | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ezekiel Turner | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
