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 6:41 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2024 Week 18 · Sun, Jan 5, 2025 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2024 Week 18
It turned at Q4 0:02, 2nd and 10, on Cairo Santos — 54.7 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 24–22 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:02, Bears +54.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:02 · 2nd and 10
Cairo Santos
Bears
(:02) 8-C.Santos 51 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
54.7
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Explosive plays
Packers owned this one and still lost it — 9 chunk plays, against Bears at 2 chunk plays.
Packersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Third down
Bears won this one — 7 of 14 on third down, against Packers at 3 of 10 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Bears won this one — 1 touchdown on 2 trips, against Packers at 1 touchdown on 4 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Packers owned this one and still lost it — 44% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 38% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Packersthe 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 17.1 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 32 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(:02) 8-C.Santos 51 yard field goal is GOOD, 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
Cairo Santos's 51-yard field goal with 0:02 left in the 4th put Chicago Bears ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Cairo Santos51-yd field goal51-yard field goalholder T.Taylor · snap S.DalyLead never changed again+324–229 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 5–2 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — explosive plays.
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 56 snaps at a 57% dropback rate against Packers’s 62 at 47%. Red-zone trips: Bears 2, Packers 4.
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 early-down pass rate, 43.9%, is past their previous low of 46.5% in week 4 — the lowest of their 17 charted games through week 18.
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. · −1.4σ 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 →Bears-8.7 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −6.3 vs their -2.5 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−1.15× that swing) · 56 snaps
Packers-18.3 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −10.1 vs their -8.2 pts, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (−1.22× that swing) · 61 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 8% to 86%
Tendencies room →Bears43.9%leaned — ran early · −14.1 vs their 58.0%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (−1.40× that swing) · 41 early downs
Packers42.0%right on their number · −2.2 vs their 44.2%, and they swing ±14.1 week to week (−0.16× that swing) · 50 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 56%
Tendencies room →Bears15.6%right on their number · −2.7 vs their 18.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (−0.47× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Packers17.2%inside their normal wobble · −7.0 vs their 24.3%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (−0.57× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -19% to 124%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 57.7%.
Packers25.0%right on their number · −8.8 vs their 33.8%, and they swing ±19.5 week to week (−0.45× 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 →Bears24.1%right on their number · −1.8 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±9.3 week to week (−0.19× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Packers25.0%right on their number · +1.9 vs their 23.1%, and they swing ±6.2 week to week (+0.31× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 32%
Tendencies room →Bears24.1%leaned — got home · +6.8 vs their 17.3%, and they swing ±5.7 week to week (+1.19× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Packers6.3%leaned — stayed blocked · −7.2 vs their 13.5%, and they swing ±6.8 week to week (−1.06× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
CHI's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 43.9%, 14.1 points below their season mean of 58.0% and 1.4 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 · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
21/29, 148 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
4.4 expected points added · +14.2% completion over expected
Passing · GB
10/13, 136 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-2.8 expected points added · +11.9% 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.
D.J. Moore banked 7.9 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 | 22.1 | +7.9 | 98% | 97% | 42% | 25% | 1 car, 5 yd · 9/10, 86 yd, 1 TD |
| Emanuel WilsonRB · Committee Back | 14.1 | +6.0 | 42% | 34% | 4% | 0% | 14 car, 73 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, -2 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Bell Cow Back | 12.5 | −1.1 | 79% | 67% | 8% | 28% | 20 car, 65 yd, 1 TD · 0/2, 0 yd |
| Josh JacobsRB | 11.6 | +7.0 | 31% | 34% | 4% | 1% | 6 car, 44 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 2 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 10.9 | +1.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/29, 148 yd, 1 TD · 3 car, 10 yd |
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Featured Receiver | 9.9 | +0.9 | 74% | 83% | 24% | 26% | 5/6, 49 yd |
| Malik HeathWR · Featured Receiver | 8.3 | +1.6 | 60% | 55% | 20% | 24% | 3/5, 53 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Alpha Receiver | 7.6 | −1.7 | 95% | 97% | 28% | 18% | 4/7, 36 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB · Receiving Back | 6.9 | −0.5 | 21% | 30% | 21% | 0% | 2 car, 3 yd · 5/5, 16 yd |
| Christopher BrooksRB | 5.9 | +0.2 | 28% | 31% | 4% | 0% | 8 car, 59 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.1 | −0.3 | 69% | 69% | 8% | 23% | 3 car, 3 yd · 2/2, 48 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | +1.1 | 89% | 91% | 8% | 22% | 2/2, 18 yd |
| Malik WillisQB · Starter QB | 3.7 | −0.8 | 66% | — | 0% | — | 10/13, 136 yd · 1 car, 3 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.5 | −0.6 | 87% | 88% | 13% | 37% | 0/1, 0 yd, 1 INT · 3/3, 25 yd |
| Luke MusgraveTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.9 | +1.2 | 26% | 31% | 4% | 9% | 1/1, 19 yd |
| Jordan LoveQB | 2.8 | −0.5 | 35% | — | 0% | — | 7/12, 69 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.3 | −0.3 | 98% | 94% | 8% | 5% | 2/2, 3 yd |
| Bo MeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.1 | −0.9 | 40% | 31% | 0% | — | 1 car, 1 yd |
| Collin JohnsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Marcedes LewisTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 19% | 15% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Tyler ScottWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Gerald EverettTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 4 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Christian WatsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.4 | 15% | 28% | 4% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
3 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 Packers 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.
(1:55) 18-C.Williams pass short left to 2-D.Moore to CHI 47 for no gain (24-C.Valentine). FUMBLES (24-C.Valentine), RECOVERED by GB-20-J.Bullard at CHI 46. 20-J.Bullard to CHI 43 for 3 yards (75-L.Borom).
Q4 1:55 · Bears · 1st & 20 at CHI 47 · lost 1 · -4.08 EP · −43.9% win probability
157 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 168 plays across 24 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 163. 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 24 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 68 yards from the GB 20 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB 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.
168 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
168 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears6
Packers0Bears7Packers0Bears7Packers3How the play was built
A man in motion.
Bears13Packers3Bears14Packers3Bears14Packers9Bears14Packers10How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears14Packers13How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
A trick play, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
The sack was on the quarterback.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A screen, play action, a man in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap, from outside the pocket.
Bears20Packers13Bears21Packers13How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the receiver created it himself.
How the play was built
A run-pass option, no huddle, nobody in motion.
Bears21Packers19How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, the ball was not catchable.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Bears21Packers22How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, thrown away.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears24Packers22Win 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 Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 21/29 | 148 | 1 | 0 | 1 | +4.4 |
| Keenan Allen | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | −5.9 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift | 20 | 65 | 3.3 | 1 | −2.7 |
| Caleb Williams | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D.J. Moore | 9 | 10 | 86 | 1 | 42% | +4.0 |
| Keenan Allen | 3 | 3 | 25 | 0 | 13% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Byard | 8 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tyrique Stevenson |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Willis | 10/13 | 136 | 0 | 0 | 3 | −2.8 |
| Jordan Love | 7/12 | 69 | 0 |
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_18_CHI_GB
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Packers closed -10 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 41.5; the game landed 46 — over by 4.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| D.J. Moore | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Roschon Johnson | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | −1.1 |
| +2.9 |
| Rome Odunze | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 8% | +0.5 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 5 | 16 | 0 | 21% | −0.0 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 8% | −1.3 |
| D'Andre Swift | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8% | −6.4 |
| 4 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Jonathan Owens | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kyler Gordon | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 1 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chris Williams | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Cowart | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Terell Smith | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| −2.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emanuel Wilson | 14 | 73 | 5.2 | 1 | +2.9 |
| Christopher Brooks | 8 | 59 | 7.4 | 0 | +1.7 |
| Josh Jacobs | 6 | 44 | 7.3 | 1 | +4.3 |
| Malik Willis | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Jayden Reed | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | −9.4 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Heath | 3 | 5 | 53 | 0 | 20% | +3.4 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 5 | 6 | 49 | 0 | 24% | +1.1 |
| Jayden Reed | 2 | 2 | 48 | 0 | 8% | +3.1 |
| Tucker Kraft | 4 | 7 | 36 | 0 | 28% | −1.5 |
| Luke Musgrave | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 4% | +1.3 |
| Josh Jacobs | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4% | −0.7 |
| Christopher Brooks | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −1.7 |
| Christian Watson | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.8 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 1 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 4% | −0.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edgerrin Cooper | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Wilson | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kitan Oladapo | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Bullard | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Karl Brooks | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xavier McKinney | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Colby Wooden | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rashan Gary | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
