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 3:44 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2024 Week 17 · Thu, Dec 26, 2024 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 17
It turned at Q4 2:14, 4th and 5, on D.J. Moore — 16.4 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
Seattle Seahawks 6–3 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 2:14, Bears +16.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 2:14 · 4th and 5
D.J. Moore
Bears
(2:14) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass short right to 2-D.Moore pushed ob at CHI 49 for 14 yards (21-D.Witherspoon).
16.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Staying on schedule
Seahawks won this one — 42% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 34% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Seahawksthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Seahawks won this one — 5 of 13 on third down, against Bears at 5 of 15 on third down.
Seahawksthe 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 13.6 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 21 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(2:14) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass short right to 2-D.Moore pushed ob at CHI 49 for 14 yards (21-D.Witherspoon).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jason Myers's 50-yard field goal with 0:26 left in the 2nd put Seattle Seahawks ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Jason Myers50-yd field goal50-yard field goalholder M.Dickson · snap C.StollLead never changed again+36–33 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Seahawkscategory by categoryBears
Seahawks ahead 6–0 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — sacks taken.
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: Seahawks ran 50 snaps at a 56% dropback rate against Bears’s 58 at 66%. Red-zone trips: Seahawks 1, Bears 1.
Seahawks won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.17 expected points added per play vs -0.21.
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.
SEA's sack or hit rate, 28.9%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 17 — 2.6 points clear of the next team along.
38 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.1 points. · +1.6σ from their own normal
SEA's play-action rate, 39.3%, is past their previous high of 33.3% in week 15 — the highest of their 16 charted games through week 17.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.6 points. · +1.9σ from their own normal
SEA's pass rate over expected, −9.6 pts, is past their previous low of −6.9 pts in week 9 — the lowest of their 16 charted games through week 17.
50 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.0 points. · −1.6σ from their own normal
CHI's sack or hit rate turned over: 9.1% in week 16 against 25.0% here — they stayed blocked then and got home now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.7 points. · +1.3σ from their own normal
CHI's fourth-and-short go rate turned over: 100.0% in week 16 against 25.0% here — they went for it then and took the kick now, a turn of 2.9 of their own weekly swings across the two.
4 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 11 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 25.8 points. · −1.3σ from their own normal
SEA's early-down pass rate turned over: 73.5% in week 16 against 45.9% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
37 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.4 points. · −1.2σ 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 -17 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Seahawks-9.6 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −11.3 vs their 1.7 pts, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (−1.60× that swing) · 50 snaps
Bears-3.5 ptsright on their number · −1.0 vs their -2.5 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−0.19× that swing) · 58 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 30% to 93%
Tendencies room →Seahawks45.9%leaned — ran early · −15.4 vs their 61.4%, and they swing ±12.4 week to week (−1.25× that swing) · 37 early downs
Bears56.1%right on their number · −1.9 vs their 58.0%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (−0.19× that swing) · 41 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 47%
Tendencies room →Seahawks39.3%leaned — faked the run · +19.9 vs their 19.4%, and they swing ±10.6 week to week (+1.87× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Bears18.4%right on their number · +0.1 vs their 18.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (+0.01× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -37% to 126%
Fourth Down room →Seahawks0.0%leaned — took the kick · −39.6 vs their 39.6%, and they swing ±29.8 week to week (−1.33× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
Bears25.0%leaned — took the kick · −32.7 vs their 57.7%, and they swing ±25.8 week to week (−1.27× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 59%
Tendencies room →Seahawks36.8%inside their normal wobble · +10.3 vs their 26.6%, and they swing ±12.6 week to week (+0.81× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Bears39.3%leaned — sent pressure · +13.4 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±9.3 week to week (+1.44× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 36%
Tendencies room →Seahawks28.9%leaned — got home · +11.4 vs their 17.5%, and they swing ±7.1 week to week (+1.60× that swing) · 38 dropbacks
Bears25.0%leaned — got home · +7.7 vs their 17.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (+1.34× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
SEA's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 39.3%, 19.9 points above their season mean of 19.4% and 1.9 times their own 10.6-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.
Seattle Seahawks
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · SEA
17/23, 160 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-4.2 expected points added · +8.8% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
16/28, 122 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-10.2 expected points added · -5.0% 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.
Noah Fant banked 2.3 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. MooreWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.2 | +0.3 | 95% | 92% | 31% | 31% | 2 car, 8 yd · 6/8, 54 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 12.1 | −0.8 | 66% | 58% | 19% | 0% | 12 car, 53 yd · 4/5, 28 yd |
| Zach CharbonnetRB · Bell Cow Back | 10.6 | −1.4 | 75% | 82% | 14% | 0% | 15 car, 57 yd · 3/3, 19 yd |
| Geno SmithQB · Starter QB | 8.3 | +0.5 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/23, 160 yd · 3 car, 19 yd |
| Noah FantTE · Featured Receiver | 8.3 | +2.3 | 56% | 75% | 23% | 0% | 4/5, 43 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 7.5 | −4.2 | 95% | 100% | 31% | 17% | 5/8, 25 yd |
| DK MetcalfWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.2 | +2.3 | 88% | 93% | 14% | 41% | 3/3, 42 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 6.6 | −5.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 16/28, 122 yd, 1 INT · 5 car, 37 yd |
| Jaxon Smith-NjigbaWR · Alpha Receiver | 6.2 | −2.8 | 96% | 100% | 27% | 65% | 3/6, 32 yd |
| Tyler LockettWR · Featured Receiver | 5.0 | −1.5 | 69% | 86% | 18% | 18% | 3/4, 20 yd |
| Kenny McIntoshRB | 4.6 | +1.1 | 25% | 18% | 0% | — | 7 car, 46 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.5 | −2.9 | 92% | 92% | 15% | 47% | 1/4, 15 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 0.5 | −1.1 | 33% | 42% | 0% | — | 4 car, 5 yd |
| Tyler ScottWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 93% | 89% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.0 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| George HolaniRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Jaelon DardenWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Dareke YoungWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Pharaoh BrownTE · Rotational Receiver | -0.6 | −2.0 | 35% | 21% | 5% | 0% | 1/1, 4 yd |
5 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 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 Seahawks 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.
(1:15) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass short right to 15-R.Odunze to SEA 40 for 15 yards (8-C.Bryant) [53-B.Mafe].
Q4 1:15 · Bears · 3rd & 14 at CHI 45 · gained 15 · +1.52 EP · +17.6% win probability
136 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: 149 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 136 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 144. 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.
3 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was SEA moving 71 yards from the SEA 20 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, SEA 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.
149 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
149 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Seahawks3
Bears0How the play was built
A screen, a man in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap.
Seahawks3Bears3Seahawks6Bears3How the play was built
A screen, a run-pass option, play action, no huddle, nobody in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the ball was not catchable.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the second read, the ball was not catchable.
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: Seahawks at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geno Smith | 17/23 | 160 | 0 | 0 | 3 | −4.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zach Charbonnet | 15 | 57 | 3.8 | 0 | −3.0 |
| Kenny McIntosh | 7 | 46 | 6.6 | 0 | +0.8 |
| Geno Smith |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noah Fant | 4 | 5 | 43 | 0 | 23% | +1.9 |
| DK Metcalf | 3 | 3 | 42 | 0 | 14% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coby Bryant | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Devon Witherspoon | 6 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ernest Jones |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 16/28 | 122 | 0 | 1 | 7 | −10.2 |
| 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_17_SEA_CHI
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Seahawks closed -3.5, won by 3 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 43.5; the game landed 9 — under by 34.5.
Conditions and crew
| 3 |
| 19 |
| 6.3 |
| 0 |
| +2.1 |
| +1.7 |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 3 | 6 | 32 | 0 | 27% | +0.9 |
| Tyler Lockett | 3 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 18% | −1.3 |
| Zach Charbonnet | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 14% | −0.7 |
| Pharaoh Brown | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5% | −4.6 |
| 1 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Leonard Williams | 5 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Julian Love | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Jobe | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Boye Mafe | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uchenna Nwosu | 3 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Byron Murphy | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jarran Reed | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| D'Andre Swift | 12 | 53 | 4.4 | 0 | −0.7 |
| Caleb Williams | 5 | 37 | 7.4 | 0 | +1.4 |
| D.J. Moore | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Roschon Johnson | 4 | 5 | 1.3 | 0 | −2.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 6 | 8 | 54 | 0 | 31% | +3.1 |
| D'Andre Swift | 4 | 5 | 28 | 0 | 19% | +0.5 |
| Keenan Allen | 5 | 8 | 25 | 0 | 31% | −2.1 |
| Rome Odunze | 1 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 15% | −1.6 |
| Gerald Everett | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T.J. Edwards | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyler Gordon | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Owens | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Cowart | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darrell Taylor | 3 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Byard | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jake Martin | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
