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 11:25 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 2 · Mon, Sep 15, 2025 · Allegiant Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 2
It turned at Q2 2:00, 2nd and 3, on Quentin Johnston — 10.9 win-probability points to the Chargers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Los Angeles Chargers 20–9. Biggest swing: Q2 2:00, Chargers +10.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 2:00 · 2nd and 3
Quentin Johnston
Chargers
(2:00) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep left to 1-Q.Johnston for 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
10.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Throwing the ball
Chargers won this one — +0.40 expected points per dropback, against Raiders at -0.46 expected points per dropback.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Raiders owned this one and still lost it — -0.20 expected points per carry, against Chargers at -0.67 expected points per carry.
Raidersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Every snap
Chargers won this one — -0.02 expected points per snap, against Raiders at -0.39 expected points per snap.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Chargers won this one — 1 giveaway, against Raiders at 3 giveaways.
Chargersthe 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 8.9 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 21 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Raiders.
(2:00) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep left to 1-Q.Johnston for 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Keenan Allen's 10-yard touchdown catch with 0:28 left in the 1st put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Keenan Allen10-yd TD catch10-yard touchdown catchfrom Justin HerbertLead never changed again+710–37 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Chargerscategory by categoryRaiders
Chargers ahead 7–2 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, ±0.67 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 53 snaps at a 60% dropback rate against Raiders’s 65 at 74%. Red-zone trips: Chargers 5, Raiders 3.
Chargers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.02 expected points added per play vs -0.39.
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.
LAC's pass rate over expected, +14.4 pts, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 2 — 6.4 points clear of the next team along.
53 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.0 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
LV's blitz rate sent, 37.5%, sat 15.5 points above their season number of 22.0% — they sent pressure by 2.3 times their own 6.7-point weekly swing.
32 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.7 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 -25 pts to 22 pts
Over Expected room →Chargers14.4 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +13.5 vs their 0.8 pts, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+1.70× that swing) · 53 snaps
Raiders4.3 ptsinside their normal wobble · +5.9 vs their -1.6 pts, and they swing ±9.1 week to week (+0.65× that swing) · 65 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 24% to 92%
Tendencies room →Chargers60.0%right on their number · +1.4 vs their 58.6%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (+0.11× that swing) · 40 early downs
Raiders71.1%inside their normal wobble · +13.2 vs their 57.9%, and they swing ±13.4 week to week (+0.99× that swing) · 45 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 3% to 47%
Tendencies room →Chargers28.1%inside their normal wobble · +4.7 vs their 23.4%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+0.61× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Raiders20.8%inside their normal wobble · −4.8 vs their 25.6%, and they swing ±8.5 week to week (−0.56× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -34% to 143%
Fourth Down room →Chargers40.0%inside their normal wobble · +18.3 vs their 21.7%, and they swing ±19.7 week to week (+0.93× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
Raiders—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 54.5%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -13% to 64%
Tendencies room →Chargers27.1%right on their number · +1.6 vs their 25.5%, and they swing ±15.1 week to week (+0.11× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
Raiders37.5%off script — sent pressure · +15.5 vs their 22.0%, and they swing ±6.7 week to week (+2.31× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 34%
Tendencies room →Chargers10.4%inside their normal wobble · −4.7 vs their 15.2%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (−0.65× that swing) · 48 dropbacks
Raiders9.4%inside their normal wobble · −4.5 vs their 13.9%, and they swing ±7.6 week to week (−0.59× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
LV's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 37.5%, 15.5 points above their season mean of 22.0% and 2.3 times their own 6.7-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 · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Las Vegas Raiders
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Who moved the needle
Passing · LAC
19/27, 242 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
10.2 expected points added · +0.3% completion over expected
Passing · LV
24/43, 180 yds, 0 TD, 3 INT
-23.1 expected points added · -15.3% completion over expected
Receiving · LAC
3/7 for 71 yds, 1 TD
26% of team targets · 2.2 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.
Justin Herbert banked 3.9 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 18.8 | +3.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/27, 242 yd, 2 TD · 9 car, 31 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 17.1 | +3.2 | 55% | 78% | 26% | 22% | 5/7, 61 yd, 1 TD |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Alpha Receiver | 15.9 | +2.5 | 76% | 94% | 26% | 47% | 1 car, -2 yd · 3/7, 71 yd, 1 TD |
| Jakobi MeyersWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.8 | −8.0 | 93% | 98% | 28% | 35% | 6/12, 68 yd |
| Ladd McConkeyWR · Featured Receiver | 9.8 | +2.5 | 74% | 88% | 19% | 13% | 5/5, 48 yd |
| Brock BowersTE · Featured Receiver | 8.8 | −4.3 | 77% | 88% | 19% | 18% | 5/8, 38 yd |
| Ashton JeantyRB · Committee Back | 7.4 | −3.5 | 56% | 46% | 9% | 0% | 11 car, 43 yd · 3/4, 1 yd |
| Najee HarrisRB | 6.8 | +0.1 | 34% | 25% | 7% | 2% | 8 car, 28 yd · 2/2, 20 yd |
| Tre HarrisWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.4 | +0.5 | 31% | 25% | 11% | 13% | 2/3, 34 yd |
| Tre TuckerWR · Featured Receiver | 4.9 | −9.1 | 91% | 92% | 19% | 21% | 1 car, 7 yd · 3/8, 12 yd |
| Dylan LaubeRB | 3.7 | +0.8 | 17% | 25% | 5% | 0% | 2/2, 17 yd |
| Omarion HamptonRB | 3.5 | −11.9 | 62% | 72% | 7% | 1% | 8 car, 24 yd · 1/2, 1 yd |
| Zamir WhiteRB | 3.3 | −1.8 | 30% | 29% | 7% | 0% | 2 car, -2 yd · 2/3, 15 yd |
| Geno SmithQB · Starter QB | 3.2 | −16.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 24/43, 180 yd, 3 INT · 5 car, 20 yd |
| Dont'e Thornton Jr.WR · Rotational Receiver | 3.0 | −5.1 | 81% | 85% | 9% | 36% | 1/4, 20 yd |
| Michael MayerTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.9 | +0.3 | 34% | 23% | 5% | 2% | 2/2, 9 yd |
| Will DisslyTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | +0.1 | 40% | 41% | 4% | 2% | 1/1, 7 yd |
| Hassan HaskinsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Ian ThomasTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
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 Raiders 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.
(2:00) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass deep left to 1-Q.Johnston for 60 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q2 2:00 · Chargers · 2nd & 3 at LAC 40 · gained 60 · +5.36 EP · +11.7% win probability
150 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: 163 plays across 21 drives, personnel groupings on 150 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 158. 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.
7 of 21 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 91 yards from the LAC 9 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; LV 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.
163 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
163 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Chargers3
Raiders0Chargers3Raiders3Chargers9Raiders3Chargers10Raiders3Chargers10Raiders6How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Chargers16Raiders6Chargers17Raiders6Chargers20Raiders6Chargers20Raiders9Win 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 Raiders, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 19/27 | 242 | 2 | 0 | 2 | +10.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 9 | 31 | 3.4 | 0 | −10.2 |
| Najee Harris | 8 | 28 | 3.5 | 0 | −0.8 |
| Omarion Hampton |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quentin Johnston | 3 | 7 | 71 | 1 | 26% | +2.2 |
| Keenan Allen | 5 | 7 | 61 | 1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daiyan Henley | 6 | 3 | 1.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Tarheeb Still | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Derwin James |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geno Smith | 24/43 | 180 | 0 | 3 | 3 | −23.1 |
| 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_02_LAC_LV
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 -3.5 and covered, winning by 11.
Total closed 46.5; the game landed 29 — under by 17.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 8 |
| 24 |
| 3.0 |
| 0 |
| −3.4 |
| Quentin Johnston | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | −1.1 |
| 26% |
| +5.7 |
| Ladd McConkey | 5 | 5 | 48 | 0 | 19% | +3.1 |
| Tre Harris | 2 | 3 | 34 | 0 | 11% | +1.6 |
| Najee Harris | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 7% | +1.4 |
| Will Dissly | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 4% | −0.0 |
| Omarion Hampton | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7% | −1.4 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 2 |
| Tuli Tuipulotu | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Tony Jefferson | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Alohi Gilman | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Naquan Jones | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Hassan Haskins | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Caleb Murphy | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Hart | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 11 | 43 | 3.9 | 0 | −1.0 |
| Geno Smith | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 0 | +1.1 |
| Tre Tucker | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Zamir White | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 | −2.8 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakobi Meyers | 6 | 12 | 68 | 0 | 28% | −3.5 |
| Brock Bowers | 5 | 8 | 38 | 0 | 19% | +1.3 |
| Dont'e Thornton Jr. | 1 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 9% | −0.8 |
| Dylan Laube | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 5% | +0.5 |
| Zamir White | 2 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 7% | −0.7 |
| Tre Tucker | 3 | 8 | 12 | 0 | 19% | −9.0 |
| Michael Mayer | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 5% | −0.1 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 9% | −3.2 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devin White | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Germaine Pratt | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Jeremy Chinn | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Isaiah Pola-Mao | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elandon Roberts | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamal Adams | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonah Laulu | 2 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leki Fotu | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyu Blu Kelly | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Dont'e Thornton Jr. | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
