The biggest swing of the game · Q1 0:22 · 3rd and 5
Bo Nix
Broncos
(:22) (Shotgun) 10-B.Nix scrambles right tackle for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
6.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
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 4 · Mon, Sep 29, 2025 · Empower Field at Mile High
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 4
It turned at Q1 0:22, 3rd and 5, on Bo Nix — 6.6 win-probability points to the Broncos on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Denver Broncos 28–3 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q1 0:22, Broncos +6.6% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 0:22 · 3rd and 5
Bo Nix
Broncos
(:22) (Shotgun) 10-B.Nix scrambles right tackle for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
6.6
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Explosive plays
Broncos won this one — 10 chunk plays, against Bengals at 1 chunk play.
Broncosthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Broncos won this one — 8 of 13 on third down, against Bengals at 2 of 11 on third down.
Broncosthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Broncos won this one — 4 touchdowns on 5 trips, against Bengals at 0 touchdowns on 1 trip.
Broncosthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Broncos won this one — +0.35 expected points per dropback, against Bengals at -0.36 expected points per dropback.
Broncosthe 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 7.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 25 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bengals.
(:22) (Shotgun) 10-B.Nix scrambles right tackle for 6 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Bo Nix's 6-yard rushing touchdown with 0:22 left in the 1st put Denver Broncos ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 3 scores that followed.
5 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Broncos ahead 8–1 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, ±0.36 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: Bengals ran 42 snaps at a 69% dropback rate against Broncos’s 77 at 57%. Red-zone trips: Bengals 1, Broncos 5.
Broncos won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.22 expected points added per play vs -0.26.
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.
DEN's blitz rate sent, 6.9%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 4 — 5.2 points clear of the next team along.
29 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.3 points. · −2.3σ from their own normal
CIN's play-action rate turned over: 25.8% in week 3 against 10.3% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
29 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.2 points. · −0.8σ from their own normal
CIN's pass rate over expected turned over: −9.5 pts in week 3 against +2.9 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
42 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.2 points. · +0.2σ 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 -12 pts to 15 pts
Over Expected room →right on their number · +1.3 vs their 1.6 pts, and they swing ±5.2 week to week (+0.24× that swing) · 42 snaps
right on their number · +0.8 vs their 1.4 pts, and they swing ±4.3 week to week (+0.19× that swing) · 77 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 38% to 83%
Tendencies room →right on their number · −0.1 vs their 61.4%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.02× that swing) · 31 early downs
inside their normal wobble · −5.2 vs their 56.0%, and they swing ±7.0 week to week (−0.75× that swing) · 63 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 46%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · −5.8 vs their 16.2%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (−0.81× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
right on their number · −1.3 vs their 24.0%, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (−0.16× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -35% to 105%
Fourth Down room →leaned — took the kick · −34.0 vs their 34.0%, and they swing ±26.8 week to week (−1.27× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 35.7%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 57%
Tendencies room →leaned — sent pressure · +12.9 vs their 21.2%, and they swing ±9.9 week to week (+1.31× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
off script — sat back · −23.2 vs their 30.1%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (−2.26× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 45%
Tendencies room →leaned — stayed blocked · −11.6 vs their 13.9%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−1.45× that swing) · 44 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · −5.2 vs their 22.5%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−0.60× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
DEN's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 6.9%, 23.2 points below their season mean of 30.1% and 2.3 times their own 10.3-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.
Cincinnati Bengals
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Denver Broncos
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · DEN
Bo NixQB
29/42, 326 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
13.3 expected points added · -2.2% completion over expected
Passing · CIN
14/25, 125 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-10.4 expected points added · -4.9% completion over expected
Receiving · DEN
5/6 for 81 yds, 1 TD
14% of team targets · 10.7 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.
Marvin Mims Jr. banked 10.5 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bo NixQB · Starter QB | 25.7 | +2.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 29/42, 326 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 6 car, 7 yd, 1 TD |
| Marvin Mims Jr.WR · Rotational Receiver | 20.5 | +10.5 | 40% | 52% | 14% | 8% | 1 car, 16 yd, 1 TD · 6/6, 69 yd |
| RJ HarveyRB · Committee Back | 19.8 | +1.4 | 41% | 34% | 12% | 5% | 14 car, 58 yd · 4/5, 40 yd, 1 TD |
| Courtland SuttonWR · Rotational Receiver | 19.1 | +9.0 | 85% | 91% | 14% | 18% | 5/6, 81 yd, 1 TD |
| J.K. DobbinsRB · Committee Back | 11.5 | +1.8 | 44% | 41% | 2% | 0% | 16 car, 101 yd · 1/1, 4 yd |
| Chase BrownRB · Bell Cow Back | 10.1 | +1.2 | 73% | 69% | 14% | 0% | 10 car, 40 yd · 3/3, 31 yd |
| Troy FranklinWR · Featured Receiver | 9.5 | −8.2 | 58% | 80% | 19% | 41% | 4/8, 55 yd |
| Ja'Marr ChaseWR · Alpha Receiver | 7.3 | −4.1 | 96% | 97% | 36% | 28% | 5/8, 23 yd |
| Evan EngramTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.9 | −5.8 | 43% | 61% | 17% | 22% | 4/7, 29 yd |
| Tee HigginsWR · Alpha Receiver | 6.2 | −4.9 | 83% | 97% | 27% | 48% | 3/6, 32 yd |
| Jake BrowningQB · Starter QB | 5.4 | −4.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 14/25, 125 yd · 3 car, 4 yd |
| Adam TrautmanTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.2 | +0.7 | 52% | 30% | 7% | 4% | 2/3, 32 yd |
| Andrei IosivasWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.7 | +1.2 | 90% | 97% | 5% | 8% | 1 car, 5 yd · 1/1, 22 yd |
| Nate AdkinsTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.5 | −1.9 | 42% | 32% | 7% | 0% | 2/3, 5 yd |
| Tyler BadieRB | 2.1 | −0.3 | 10% | 18% | 5% | 3% | 1/2, 11 yd |
| Mitchell TinsleyWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.9 | −1.2 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Mike GesickiTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | +0.4 | 56% | 69% | 5% | 3% | 1/1, 8 yd |
| Samaje PerineRB | 0.4 | −1.5 | 31% | 34% | 5% | 0% | 1 car, 4 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Adam PrenticeRB | 0.4 | −0.2 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Tahj BrooksRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Charlie JonesWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Pat BryantWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.6 | 33% | 36% | 2% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 2 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 Broncos attack right, the Bengals 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.
(12:33) (Shotgun) 6-J.Browning pass deep left to 5-T.Higgins to DEN 31 for 19 yards (21-R.Moss).
Q1 12:33 · Bengals · 3rd & 6 at 50 · gained 19 · +2.58 EP · +8.7% win probability
159 snaps placed · 10 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 169 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 159 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 164. 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.
5 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was DEN moving 80 yards from the DEN 20 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; DEN attacks right, CIN 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.
169 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
169 plays
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: Bengals at Broncos, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Browning | 14/25 | 125 | 0 | 0 | 3 | −10.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase Brown | 10 | 40 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.9 |
| Andrei Iosivas | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Jake Browning |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tee Higgins | 3 | 6 | 32 | 0 | 27% | −1.9 |
| Chase Brown | 3 | 3 | 31 | 0 | 14% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demetrius Knight Jr. | 6 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Geno Stone | 4 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daxton Hill |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bo Nix | 29/42 | 326 | 2 | 1 | 0 | +13.3 |
| 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_04_CIN_DEN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Broncos closed -7.5 and covered, winning by 25.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 31 — under by 13.5.
Conditions and crew
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 1.3 |
| 0 |
| +0.6 |
| Samaje Perine | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| +1.2 |
| Ja'Marr Chase | 5 | 8 | 23 | 0 | 36% | −4.0 |
| Andrei Iosivas | 1 | 1 | 22 | 0 | 5% | +1.5 |
| Mitchell Tinsley | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9% | +0.2 |
| Mike Gesicki | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 5% | +0.6 |
| Samaje Perine | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5% | −1.0 |
| 5 |
| 4 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Jordan Battle | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| B.J. Hill | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Logan Wilson | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shaka Heyward | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Newton | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kris Jenkins | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Barrett Carter | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 16 | 101 | 6.3 | 0 | +3.2 |
| RJ Harvey | 14 | 58 | 4.1 | 0 | −3.0 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 1 | +2.3 |
| Bo Nix | 6 | 7 | 1.2 | 1 | +1.4 |
| Adam Prentice | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courtland Sutton | 5 | 6 | 81 | 1 | 14% | +10.7 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 6 | 6 | 69 | 0 | 14% | +2.7 |
| Troy Franklin | 4 | 8 | 55 | 0 | 19% | −2.1 |
| RJ Harvey | 4 | 5 | 40 | 1 | 12% | +4.7 |
| Adam Trautman | 2 | 3 | 32 | 0 | 7% | +1.3 |
| Evan Engram | 4 | 7 | 29 | 0 | 17% | −2.5 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 5% | +0.3 |
| Nate Adkins | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 7% | −0.5 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 2% | −0.4 |
| Pat Bryant | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2% | −1.0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Singleton | 6 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja'Quan McMillian | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jahdae Barron | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandon Jones | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Justin Strnad | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nik Bonitto | 2 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Riley Moss | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| John Franklin-Myers | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathon Cooper | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
| Dondrea Tillman | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |