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 11:23 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 4 · Sun, Sep 28, 2025 · NRG Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 4
It turned at Q3 10:46, 4th and 3, on Ka'imi Fairbairn — 7.2 win-probability points to the Titans on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Houston Texans 26–0 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q3 10:46, Titans +7.2% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 10:46 · 4th and 3
Ka'imi Fairbairn
Titans
(10:46) 15-K.Fairbairn 54 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-40-A.Brinkman, Holder-6-T.Townsend.
7.2
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
Texans won this one — +0.24 expected points per dropback, against Titans at -0.49 expected points per dropback.
Texansthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Texans won this one — +0.15 expected points per snap, against Titans at -0.34 expected points per snap.
Texansthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Texans won this one — 6 of 15 on third down, against Titans at 2 of 11 on third down.
Texansthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Texans won this one — 41% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Titans at 33% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Texansthe 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 9.0 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 25 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Titans.
(10:46) 15-K.Fairbairn 54 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-40-A.Brinkman, Holder-6-T.Townsend.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Ka'imi Fairbairn's 47-yard field goal with 4:55 left in the 1st put Houston Texans ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Ka'imi Fairbairn47-yd field goal47-yard field goalholder T.Townsend · snap A.BrinkmanLead never changed again+30–35 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Titanscategory by categoryTexans
Texans ahead 8–0 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, ±0.49 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: Titans ran 45 snaps at a 64% dropback rate against Texans’s 66 at 50%. Red-zone trips: Titans 0, Texans 3.
Texans won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.15 expected points added per play vs -0.34.
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.
HOU's sack or hit rate turned over: 9.3% in week 3 against 24.1% here — they stayed blocked then and got home now, a turn of 2.8 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 5.3 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
TEN's blitz rate sent turned over: 37.0% in week 3 against 12.1% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 2.9 of their own weekly swings across the two.
33 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.7 points. · −1.5σ from their own normal
HOU's early-down pass rate turned over: 68.3% in week 3 against 48.9% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.0 of their own weekly swings across the two.
47 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.6 points. · −0.6σ 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 -18 pts to 13 pts
Over Expected room →Titans-6.9 ptsinside their normal wobble · −3.0 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−0.56× that swing) · 45 snaps
Texans-3.4 ptsright on their number · −2.3 vs their -1.1 pts, and they swing ±5.2 week to week (−0.44× that swing) · 65 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 30% to 86%
Tendencies room →Titans60.6%right on their number · +1.3 vs their 59.3%, and they swing ±10.4 week to week (+0.13× that swing) · 33 early downs
Texans48.9%inside their normal wobble · −5.8 vs their 54.8%, and they swing ±9.6 week to week (−0.61× that swing) · 47 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 41%
Tendencies room →Titans13.8%inside their normal wobble · −5.3 vs their 19.1%, and they swing ±8.1 week to week (−0.66× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
Texans27.3%inside their normal wobble · +4.5 vs their 22.8%, and they swing ±6.9 week to week (+0.65× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -41% to 106%
Fourth Down room →Titans25.0%right on their number · −10.2 vs their 35.2%, and they swing ±27.7 week to week (−0.37× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Texans42.9%inside their normal wobble · +19.1 vs their 23.8%, and they swing ±24.9 week to week (+0.77× that swing) · 7 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 48%
Tendencies room →Titans12.1%leaned — sat back · −13.4 vs their 25.5%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−1.54× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
Texans20.7%right on their number · −1.2 vs their 21.9%, and they swing ±9.5 week to week (−0.13× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 31%
Tendencies room →Titans15.2%right on their number · −0.8 vs their 15.9%, and they swing ±5.9 week to week (−0.13× that swing) · 33 dropbacks
Texans24.1%leaned — got home · +9.1 vs their 15.0%, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (+1.72× that swing) · 29 dropbacks
HOU's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 24.1%, 9.1 points above their season mean of 15.0% and 1.7 times their own 5.3-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.
Tennessee Titans
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Houston Texans
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · HOU
22/28, 233 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
8.2 expected points added · +8.1% completion over expected
Passing · TEN
Cam WardQB
10/26, 108 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-16.6 expected points added · -24.5% 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.
Woody Marks banked 11.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woody MarksRB · Committee Back | 27.9 | +11.1 | 56% | 61% | 18% | 4% | 17 car, 69 yd, 1 TD · 4/5, 50 yd, 1 TD |
| C.J. StroudQB · Starter QB | 18.4 | +4.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 22/28, 233 yd, 2 TD · 4 car, 11 yd |
| Nico CollinsWR · Featured Receiver | 11.9 | +2.8 | 86% | 88% | 21% | 39% | 4/6, 79 yd |
| Tony PollardRB · Bell Cow Back | 10.6 | +0.1 | 86% | 80% | 13% | 0% | 14 car, 64 yd · 3/3, 12 yd |
| Jayden HigginsWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.4 | +6.6 | 44% | 36% | 4% | 13% | 1/1, 24 yd, 1 TD |
| Nick ChubbRB · Committee Back | 8.2 | −1.3 | 42% | 36% | 7% | 5% | 13 car, 47 yd · 2/2, 15 yd |
| Dalton SchultzTE · Featured Receiver | 8.0 | −3.0 | 85% | 91% | 21% | 27% | 5/6, 30 yd |
| Elic AyomanorWR · Alpha Receiver | 6.4 | −3.8 | 82% | 83% | 30% | 52% | 2/7, 44 yd |
| Christian KirkWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | −2.1 | 61% | 64% | 14% | 10% | 3/4, 20 yd |
| Calvin RidleyWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | +0.4 | 54% | 40% | 13% | 17% | 2/3, 30 yd |
| Cam WardQB · Starter QB | 4.5 | −3.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 10/26, 108 yd, 1 INT · 2 car, 22 yd |
| Xavier HutchinsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.7 | −0.4 | 68% | 73% | 11% | 7% | 2/3, 17 yd |
| Gunnar HelmTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | +0.6 | 40% | 40% | 4% | 5% | 1/1, 12 yd |
| Van JeffersonWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | +0.4 | 38% | 40% | 4% | 3% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Chig OkonkwoTE | 1.4 | −2.6 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. |
| Jaylin NoelWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.0 | −0.9 | 24% | 27% | 4% | 0% | 1 car, 2 yd · 1/1, -2 yd |
| Tyler LockettWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −4.3 | 72% | 87% | 17% | 18% | 0/4, 0 yd |
| Julius ChestnutRB | 0.0 | −2.1 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Chimere DikeWR · Rotational Receiver | -0.4 | −1.1 | 40% | 27% | 0% | — | 1 car, -4 yd |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number.
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 Texans attack right, the Titans 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.
(11:44) 6-J.Slye 41 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Right, Center-46-M.Cox, Holder-3-J.Hekker.
Q1 11:44 · Titans · 4th & 5 at HOU 23 · gained nothing · -4.24 EP · −10.0% win probability
143 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: 153 plays across 19 drives, personnel groupings on 143 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 148. 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 19 drives ended in points. The longest march was HOU moving 82 yards from the HOU 18 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; HOU attacks right, TEN 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.
153 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
153 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Titans0
Texans3Titans0Texans6Titans0Texans12Titans0Texans18Titans0Texans19Titans0Texans25Titans0Texans26Win 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: Titans at Texans, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cam Ward | 10/26 | 108 | 0 | 1 | 2 | −16.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tony Pollard | 14 | 64 | 4.6 | 0 | +1.4 |
| Cam Ward | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 | +2.3 |
| Julius Chestnut |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elic Ayomanor | 2 | 7 | 44 | 0 | 30% | −7.1 |
| Calvin Ridley | 2 | 3 | 30 | 0 | 13% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedric Gray | 8 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cody Barton | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amani Hooker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Stroud | 22/28 | 233 | 2 | 0 | 2 | +8.2 |
| 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/2025_04_TEN_HOU
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Texans closed -7.5 and covered, winning by 26.
Total closed 39.5; the game landed 26 — under by 13.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 1 |
| 0 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| −1.5 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 | −1.0 |
| +2.4 |
| Tony Pollard | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 13% | −0.6 |
| Gunnar Helm | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 4% | +0.5 |
| Van Jefferson | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4% | +0.2 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 13% | −1.5 |
| Tyler Lockett | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 17% | −4.8 |
| Julius Chestnut | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −1.0 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Jeffery Simmons | 4 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roger McCreary | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quandre Diggs | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Xavier Woods | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalyn Armour-Davis | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Joseph-Day | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dre'Mont Jones | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Woody Marks | 17 | 69 | 4.1 | 1 | +1.3 |
| Nick Chubb | 13 | 47 | 3.6 | 0 | −3.0 |
| C.J. Stroud | 4 | 11 | 2.8 | 0 | +3.7 |
| Jaylin Noel | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nico Collins | 4 | 6 | 79 | 0 | 21% | +3.4 |
| Woody Marks | 4 | 5 | 50 | 1 | 18% | +4.1 |
| Dalton Schultz | 5 | 6 | 30 | 0 | 21% | −0.6 |
| Jayden Higgins | 1 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 4% | +3.1 |
| Christian Kirk | 3 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 14% | −0.5 |
| Xavier Hutchinson | 2 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 11% | +0.9 |
| Nick Chubb | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 7% | +1.2 |
| Jaylin Noel | 1 | 1 | -2 | 0 | 4% | −1.2 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Henry To'oTo'o | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kamari Lassiter | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| M.J. Stewart | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| E.J. Speed | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalen Pitre | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Danielle Hunter | 3 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Azeez Al-Shaair | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Derek Stingley Jr. | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Mario Edwards | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tremon Smith | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
