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 8:35 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 1 · Mon, Sep 8, 2025 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 1
It turned at Q3 13:03, 3rd and 8, on Nahshon Wright — 29.3 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
Minnesota Vikings 27–24 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q3 13:03, Bears +29.3% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 13:03 · 3rd and 8
Nahshon Wright
Bears
(13:03) (Shotgun) 9-J.McCarthy pass short left intended for 18-J.Jefferson INTERCEPTED by 26-N.Wright at CHI 26. 26-N.Wright for 74 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
29.3
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Red zone
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 2 trips, against Vikings at 2 touchdowns on 4 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Bears owned this one and still lost it — -0.01 expected points per dropback, against Vikings at -0.35 expected points per dropback.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Running the ball
Vikings won this one — +0.01 expected points per carry, against Bears at -0.21 expected points per carry.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Bears owned this one and still lost it — -0.07 expected points per snap, against Vikings at -0.18 expected points per snap.
Bearsthe 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 8.9 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 17 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(13:03) (Shotgun) 9-J.McCarthy pass short left intended for 18-J.Jefferson INTERCEPTED by 26-N.Wright at CHI 26. 26-N.Wright for 74 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Aaron Jones's 27-yard touchdown catch with 9:52 left in the 4th put Minnesota Vikings ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 2 scores that followed.
Justin Jefferson13-yd TD catch13-yard touchdown catchfrom J.J. McCarthy · two-point no good+612–17Aaron Jones27-yd TD catch27-yard touchdown catchfrom J.J. McCarthy · two-point goodLead never changed again+820–179 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Vikingscategory by categoryBears
Bears ahead 5–1 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: Vikings ran 51 snaps at a 51% dropback rate against Bears’s 63 at 68%. Red-zone trips: Vikings 4, Bears 2.
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.
MIN's play-action rate, 38.5%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 1 — 4.1 points clear of the next team along.
26 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.3 points. · +1.5σ 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 -15 pts to 12 pts
Over Expected room →Vikings-7.1 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −5.7 vs their -1.4 pts, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (−1.08× that swing) · 49 snaps
Bears1.4 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +5.3 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±4.1 week to week (+1.29× that swing) · 63 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 26% to 83%
Tendencies room →Vikings43.2%leaned — ran early · −11.4 vs their 54.6%, and they swing ±11.0 week to week (−1.03× that swing) · 37 early downs
Bears62.0%inside their normal wobble · +7.5 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.80× that swing) · 50 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 4% to 56%
Tendencies room →Vikings38.5%leaned — faked the run · +12.5 vs their 26.0%, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (+1.51× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Bears20.9%leaned — dropped back clean · −10.7 vs their 31.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−1.14× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -40% to 96%
Fourth Down room →Vikings0.0%leaned — took the kick · −27.4 vs their 27.4%, and they swing ±26.3 week to week (−1.04× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 44.8%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -0% to 77%
Tendencies room →Vikings34.9%leaned — sat back · −16.9 vs their 51.8%, and they swing ±9.0 week to week (−1.89× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Bears23.1%inside their normal wobble · −6.8 vs their 29.9%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (−0.60× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 40%
Tendencies room →Vikings9.3%leaned — stayed blocked · −10.2 vs their 19.5%, and they swing ±7.7 week to week (−1.32× that swing) · 43 dropbacks
Bears19.2%inside their normal wobble · +6.2 vs their 13.0%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+0.77× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
MIN's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 34.9%, 16.9 points below their season mean of 51.8% and 1.9 times their own 9.0-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.
Minnesota Vikings
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
21/35, 210 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
-7.0 expected points added · -6.7% completion over expected
Passing · MIN
13/20, 143 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
-9.8 expected points added · -3.3% 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.
J.J. McCarthy banked 9.6 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 24.2 | +4.8 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 21/35, 210 yd, 1 TD · 6 car, 58 yd, 1 TD |
| J.J. McCarthyQB · Starter QB | 22.2 | +9.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 13/20, 143 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 2 car, 25 yd, 1 TD |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Alpha Receiver | 15.7 | −0.3 | 94% | 93% | 26% | 21% | 6/9, 37 yd, 1 TD |
| Aaron JonesRB · Committee Back | 15.7 | +6.0 | 50% | 58% | 15% | 18% | 8 car, 23 yd · 3/3, 44 yd, 1 TD |
| Justin JeffersonWR · Alpha Receiver | 14.8 | +1.3 | 98% | 96% | 35% | 59% | 1 car, 4 yd · 4/7, 44 yd, 1 TD |
| DJ MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 10.6 | −0.6 | 84% | 86% | 15% | 35% | 3 car, 8 yd · 3/5, 68 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Bell Cow Back | 9.5 | −7.3 | 81% | 79% | 15% | 0% | 17 car, 53 yd · 3/5, 12 yd |
| Jordan MasonRB · Committee Back | 8.5 | −0.9 | 54% | 46% | 5% | 0% | 15 car, 68 yd · 1/1, 7 yd |
| Olamide ZaccheausWR · Featured Receiver | 8.2 | −2.7 | 45% | 60% | 21% | 22% | 4/7, 42 yd |
| T.J. HockensonTE · Featured Receiver | 4.5 | −1.2 | 80% | 92% | 20% | 11% | 3/4, 15 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | −2.1 | 90% | 86% | 12% | 21% | 1/4, 31 yd |
| Jalen NailorWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | −0.2 | 88% | 92% | 15% | 13% | 1/3, 28 yd |
| Colston LovelandTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | +0.3 | 57% | 51% | 6% | 2% | 2/2, 12 yd |
| Kyle MonangaiRB | 2.1 | +0.5 | 13% | 21% | 3% | 2% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Adam ThielenWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | −0.6 | 57% | 65% | 5% | 6% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Josh OliverTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | −1.1 | 48% | 23% | 5% | 0% | 1/1, 5 yd |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.7 | −0.7 | 27% | 21% | 3% | 0% | 1/1, -3 yd |
| Devin DuvernayWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Myles PriceWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Tai FeltonWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Ty ChandlerRB | 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 Bears attack right, the Vikings 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.
(13:03) (Shotgun) 9-J.McCarthy pass short left intended for 18-J.Jefferson INTERCEPTED by 26-N.Wright at CHI 26. 26-N.Wright for 74 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q3 13:03 · Vikings · 3rd & 8 at CHI 32 · gained nothing · -9.66 EP · −22.1% win probability
162 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: 176 plays across 27 drives, personnel groupings on 162 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 171. 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 27 drives ended in points. The longest march was MIN moving 68 yards from the MIN 32 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, MIN 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.
176 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
176 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Vikings0
Bears6Vikings0Bears7Vikings3Bears7Vikings3Bears10Vikings6Bears10How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Vikings6Bears16Vikings6Bears17Vikings12Bears17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Vikings18Bears17Vikings20Bears17Vikings26Bears17Vikings27Bears17Vikings27Bears23Vikings27Bears24Win 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: Vikings at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.J. McCarthy | 13/20 | 143 | 2 | 1 | 3 | −9.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Mason | 15 | 68 | 4.5 | 0 | −1.1 |
| J.J. McCarthy | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 1 | +3.4 |
| Aaron Jones |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Jones | 3 | 3 | 44 | 1 | 15% | +4.2 |
| Justin Jefferson | 4 | 7 | 44 | 1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Van Ginkel | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Isaiah Rodgers | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Metellus |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 21/35 | 210 | 1 | 0 | 2 | −7.0 |
| 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/2025_01_MIN_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
Vikings closed -1.5 and covered, winning by 3.
Total closed 43.5; the game landed 51 — over by 7.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 8 |
| 23 |
| 2.9 |
| 0 |
| −1.4 |
| Justin Jefferson | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| 35% |
| −6.8 |
| Jalen Nailor | 1 | 3 | 28 | 0 | 15% | −0.5 |
| T.J. Hockenson | 3 | 4 | 15 | 0 | 20% | −0.3 |
| Jordan Mason | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 5% | −0.1 |
| Josh Oliver | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5% | −0.7 |
| Adam Thielen | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −0.6 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Ivan Pace Jr. | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Hargrave | 3 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Wilson | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Murphy | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Theo Jackson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Blake Cashman | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dallas Turner | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Caleb Williams | 6 | 58 | 9.7 | 1 | +6.6 |
| D'Andre Swift | 17 | 53 | 3.1 | 0 | −3.5 |
| DJ Moore | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DJ Moore | 3 | 5 | 68 | 0 | 15% | +0.0 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 4 | 7 | 42 | 0 | 21% | +0.4 |
| Rome Odunze | 6 | 9 | 37 | 1 | 26% | −0.9 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | 4 | 31 | 0 | 12% | −0.9 |
| D'Andre Swift | 3 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 15% | −1.0 |
| Colston Loveland | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 6% | −0.6 |
| Kyle Monangai | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 3% | +1.1 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 1 | -3 | 0 | 3% | −1.0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Noah Sewell | 7 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Byard | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nahshon Wright | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Daniel Hardy | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyrique Stevenson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ruben Hyppolite II | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grady Jarrett | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
