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 6:40 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 5 · Sun, Oct 5, 2025 · Paycor Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 5
It turned at Q2 14:49, 1st and 10, on Amik Robertson — 5.7 win-probability points to the Lions on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Detroit Lions 37–24. Biggest swing: Q2 14:49, Lions +5.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 14:49 · 1st and 10
Amik Robertson
Lions
(14:49) (Shotgun) 6-J.Browning pass deep left intended for 1-J.Chase INTERCEPTED by 21-A.Robertson at CIN 19. 21-A.Robertson to CIN 17 for 2 yards (1-J.Chase).
5.7
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
Lions won this one — +0.46 expected points per dropback, against Bengals at -0.12 expected points per dropback.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Lions won this one — 1 giveaway, against Bengals at 3 giveaways.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Lions won this one — +0.23 expected points per snap, against Bengals at -0.12 expected points per snap.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Lions won this one — 53% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bengals at 41% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Lionsthe 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 11.3 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 38 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bengals.
(14:49) (Shotgun) 6-J.Browning pass deep left intended for 1-J.Chase INTERCEPTED by 21-A.Robertson at CIN 19. 21-A.Robertson to CIN 17 for 2 yards (1-J.Chase).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Sam LaPorta's 10-yard touchdown catch with 10:57 left in the 1st put Detroit Lions ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 9 scores that followed.
Sam LaPorta10-yd TD catch10-yard touchdown catchfrom Jared GoffLead never changed again+77–010 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Lionscategory by categoryBengals
Lions ahead 6–3 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — turnovers.
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, ±0.46 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: Lions ran 59 snaps at a 47% dropback rate against Bengals’s 58 at 78%. Red-zone trips: Lions 6, Bengals 3.
Lions won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.23 expected points added per play vs -0.12.
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.
DET's blitz rate sent, 13.3%, was the lowest of the 28 team-games charted in week 5 — 1.0 points clear of the next team along.
45 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.4 points. · −1.6σ from their own normal
CIN's sack or hit rate, 25.0%, was the highest of the 28 team-games charted in week 5 — 1.4 points clear of the next team along.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.0 points. · +1.4σ from their own normal
CIN's early-down pass rate, 74.5%, is past their previous high of 72.0% in week 2 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
47 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.2 points. · +1.6σ from their own normal
DET's play-action rate turned over: 14.8% in week 4 against 39.3% here — they dropped back clean then and faked the run now, a turn of 2.3 of their own weekly swings across the two.
28 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.6 points. · +1.3σ 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 -24 pts to 16 pts
Over Expected room →Lions-3.0 ptsright on their number · +1.8 vs their -4.8 pts, and they swing ±7.5 week to week (+0.24× that swing) · 59 snaps
Bengals6.5 ptsinside their normal wobble · +5.0 vs their 1.6 pts, and they swing ±5.2 week to week (+0.96× that swing) · 58 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 24% to 84%
Tendencies room →Lions42.3%inside their normal wobble · −11.4 vs their 53.7%, and they swing ±11.8 week to week (−0.96× that swing) · 52 early downs
Bengals74.5%leaned — passed early · +13.0 vs their 61.4%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+1.58× that swing) · 47 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 53%
Tendencies room →Lions39.3%leaned — faked the run · +13.4 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±10.6 week to week (+1.26× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
Bengals24.4%leaned — faked the run · +8.3 vs their 16.2%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (+1.14× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -36% to 122%
Fourth Down room →Lions—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 65.6%.
Bengals0.0%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
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 62%
Tendencies room →Lions13.3%leaned — sat back · −18.5 vs their 31.8%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (−1.62× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
Bengals25.0%right on their number · +3.8 vs their 21.2%, and they swing ±9.9 week to week (+0.39× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 39%
Tendencies room →Lions20.0%right on their number · +3.7 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (+0.43× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
Bengals25.0%leaned — got home · +11.1 vs their 13.9%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+1.39× that swing) · 28 dropbacks
DET's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 13.3%, 18.5 points below their season mean of 31.8% and 1.6 times their own 11.4-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.
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Cincinnati Bengals
48 dressed · 4 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · DET
19/23, 258 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
11.6 expected points added · +15.9% completion over expected
Passing · CIN
26/40, 251 yds, 3 TD, 3 INT
-8.8 expected points added · +0.0% completion over expected
Receiving · DET
8/9 for 100 yds, 0 TD
39% of team targets · 6.7 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.
Ja'Marr Chase banked 13.2 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Marr ChaseWR · Alpha Receiver | 29.0 | +13.2 | 92% | 93% | 25% | 47% | 6/10, 110 yd, 2 TD |
| Sam LaPortaTE · Alpha Receiver | 20.2 | +9.6 | 94% | 86% | 26% | 24% | 5/6, 92 yd, 1 TD |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 20.1 | +10.2 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/23, 258 yd, 3 TD · 2 car, -2 yd |
| Jake BrowningQB · Starter QB | 19.1 | −0.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 26/40, 251 yd, 3 TD, 3 INT · 4 car, 31 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 18.2 | −0.7 | 53% | 46% | 4% | 3% | 1/1, 3 yd, 1 TD · 18 car, 65 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 6 yd |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Alpha Receiver | 18.0 | +2.5 | 81% | 93% | 39% | 57% | 8/9, 100 yd |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Committee Back | 16.7 | +6.3 | 52% | 61% | 9% | 0% | 12 car, 54 yd · 2/2, 33 yd, 1 TD |
| Andrei IosivasWR · Rotational Receiver | 13.2 | +0.1 | 87% | 87% | 18% | 18% | 5/7, 82 yd |
| Chase BrownRB · Committee Back | 11.8 | −3.2 | 53% | 49% | 20% | 0% | 8 car, 27 yd · 7/8, 21 yd |
| Tee HigginsWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.2 | −2.3 | 97% | 98% | 18% | 26% | 3/7, 22 yd, 1 TD |
| Brock WrightTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.9 | +1.5 | 73% | 64% | 13% | 0% | 2/3, 9 yd, 1 TD |
| Isaac TeSlaaWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.2 | +4.8 | 34% | 54% | 4% | 11% | 1/1, 12 yd, 1 TD |
| Samaje PerineRB | 4.9 | −0.1 | 47% | 51% | 5% | 0% | 4 car, 27 yd · 2/2, 2 yd |
| Mike GesickiTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.5 | −4.2 | 50% | 47% | 13% | 11% | 2/5, 15 yd |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.0 | −0.5 | 82% | 86% | 4% | 6% | 1 car, 1 yd · 1/1, 9 yd |
| Drew SampleTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.9 | −0.6 | 44% | 47% | 3% | 0% | 1/1, -1 yd |
| Charlie JonesWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Jacob SaylorsRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Craig ReynoldsRB | 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 Bengals attack right, the Lions 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.
(4:56) (Shotgun) 16-J.Goff sacked at CIN 39 for -7 yards (91-T.Hendrickson). FUMBLES (91-T.Hendrickson) [91-T.Hendrickson], touched at CIN 26, RECOVERED by CIN-55-L.Wilson at CIN 28. The Replay Official reviewed the fumble ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field stands.
Q1 4:56 · Lions · 1st & 10 at CIN 32 · gained nothing · -5.30 EP · −12.4% win probability
157 snaps placed · 9 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 166 plays across 24 drives, personnel groupings on 157 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 161. 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.
9 of 24 drives ended in points. The longest march was DET moving 80 yards from the DET 20 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CIN attacks right, DET 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.
166 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
166 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Lions6
Bengals0Lions7Bengals0How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Lions13Bengals0Lions14Bengals0Lions14Bengals3Lions20Bengals3Lions21Bengals3Lions27Bengals3Lions28Bengals3Lions28Bengals9Lions28Bengals10Lions28Bengals16Lions28Bengals17Lions34Bengals17Lions35Bengals17Lions35Bengals23Lions35Bengals24Lions37Bengals24Win 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: Lions at Bengals, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 19/23 | 258 | 3 | 0 | 4 | +11.6 |
| David Montgomery | 1/1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +1.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 18 | 65 | 3.6 | 1 | +0.5 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 12 | 54 | 4.5 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 8 | 9 | 100 | 0 | 39% | +6.7 |
| Sam LaPorta | 5 | 6 | 92 | 1 | 26% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Campbell | 3 | 8 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Derrick Barnes | 5 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amik Robertson |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Browning | 26/40 | 251 | 3 | 3 | 2 | −8.8 |
| 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_05_DET_CIN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Lions closed -10.5 and covered, winning by 13.
Total closed 49.5; the game landed 61 — over by 11.5.
Conditions and crew
| Jameson Williams | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Jared Goff | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 | −4.1 |
| +7.6 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 2 | 2 | 33 | 1 | 9% | +4.8 |
| Isaac TeSlaa | 1 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 4% | +2.5 |
| Jameson Williams | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4% | +0.6 |
| Brock Wright | 2 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 13% | +0.9 |
| David Montgomery | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4% | +1.1 |
| 5 |
| 0 |
| 0.0 |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Aidan Hutchinson | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kerby Joseph | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Brian Branch | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Avonte Maddox | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trevor Nowaske | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Alex Anzalone | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Jacob Saylors | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jake Browning | 4 | 31 | 7.8 | 0 | +3.5 |
| Chase Brown | 8 | 27 | 3.4 | 0 | −2.1 |
| Samaje Perine | 4 | 27 | 6.8 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Marr Chase | 6 | 10 | 110 | 2 | 25% | +4.0 |
| Andrei Iosivas | 5 | 7 | 82 | 0 | 18% | +4.9 |
| Tee Higgins | 3 | 7 | 22 | 1 | 18% | −0.8 |
| Chase Brown | 7 | 8 | 21 | 0 | 20% | −4.5 |
| Mike Gesicki | 2 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 13% | −7.7 |
| Samaje Perine | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5% | −0.5 |
| Drew Sample | 1 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 3% | −0.8 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tedarrell Slaton | 2 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Logan Wilson | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Demetrius Knight Jr. | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Barrett Carter | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daxton Hill | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| B.J. Hill | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geno Stone | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joseph Ossai | 1 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja'Marr Chase | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cameron Sample | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
