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 6:41 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 6 · Mon, Oct 13, 2025 · FedExField
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 6
It turned at Q4 0:03, 2nd and 12, on Jake Moody — 40.2 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 25–24 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:03, Bears +40.2% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:03 · 2nd and 12
Jake Moody
Bears
(:03) 16-J.Moody 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
40.2
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Running the ball
Bears won this one — +0.22 expected points per carry, against Commanders at -0.56 expected points per carry.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Bears won this one — no giveaways, against Commanders at 3 giveaways.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Bears won this one — 9 chunk plays, against Commanders at 6 chunk plays.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Bears won this one — 53% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Commanders at 44% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Bearsthe 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 17 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(:03) 16-J.Moody 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jake Moody's 38-yard field goal with 0:03 left in the 4th put Chicago Bears ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
D'Andre Swift55-yd TD catch55-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb Williams · two-point no good+622–24Jake Moody38-yd field goal38-yard field goalholder T.Taylor · snap S.DalyLead never changed again+325–2410 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryCommanders
Bears ahead 6–1 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, ±0.56 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: Bears ran 59 snaps at a 58% dropback rate against Commanders’s 59 at 59%. Red-zone trips: Bears 4, Commanders 3.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.17 expected points added per play vs -0.06.
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.
CHI's blitz rate sent, 48.6%, was the highest of the 30 team-games charted in week 6 — 1.5 points clear of the next team along.
35 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.2 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
WAS's blitz rate sent, 41.2%, is past their previous high of 37.1% in week 3 — the highest of their 6 charted games through week 6.
34 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.6 points. · +1.6σ from their own normal
CHI's play-action rate, 41.2%, is past their previous high of 37.9% in week 3 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 6.
34 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 points. · +1.0σ from their own normal
WAS's play-action rate turned over: 9.7% in week 5 against 34.3% here — they dropped back clean then and faked the run now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
35 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.4 points. · +0.7σ 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 15 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-3.3 ptsright on their number · +0.5 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±4.1 week to week (+0.13× that swing) · 58 snaps
Commanders1.4 ptsinside their normal wobble · +5.9 vs their -4.4 pts, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+0.75× that swing) · 59 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 24% to 80%
Tendencies room →Bears51.1%right on their number · −3.5 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.37× that swing) · 47 early downs
Commanders54.0%right on their number · +2.2 vs their 51.8%, and they swing ±10.9 week to week (+0.20× that swing) · 50 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 56%
Tendencies room →Bears41.2%leaned — faked the run · +9.5 vs their 31.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+1.01× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Commanders34.3%inside their normal wobble · +7.4 vs their 26.8%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (+0.65× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 97%
Fourth Down room →Bears33.3%inside their normal wobble · −11.4 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±19.2 week to week (−0.60× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Commanders—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 52.3%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 58%
Tendencies room →Bears48.6%leaned — sent pressure · +18.7 vs their 29.9%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+1.67× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
Commanders41.2%leaned — sent pressure · +14.1 vs their 27.0%, and they swing ±8.6 week to week (+1.64× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 34%
Tendencies room →Bears8.6%inside their normal wobble · −4.4 vs their 13.0%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−0.55× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
Commanders11.8%right on their number · −2.5 vs their 14.2%, and they swing ±6.4 week to week (−0.39× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
CHI's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 48.6%, 18.7 points above their season mean of 29.9% and 1.7 times their own 11.2-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Washington Commanders
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
17/29, 252 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
3.3 expected points added · -8.2% completion over expected
Passing · WAS
19/26, 211 yds, 3 TD, 1 INT
6.4 expected points added · +11.1% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
4/4 for 51 yds, 0 TD
14% of team targets · 2.7 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.
D'Andre Swift banked 14.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 25.5 | +14.1 | 56% | 53% | 10% | 0% | 14 car, 108 yd · 2/3, 67 yd, 1 TD |
| Jayden DanielsQB · Starter QB | 21.6 | +2.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/26, 211 yd, 3 TD, 1 INT · 10 car, 52 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 20.4 | +3.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/29, 252 yd, 1 TD · 4 car, 3 yd, 1 TD |
| Zach ErtzTE · Alpha Receiver | 16.3 | +4.9 | 60% | 83% | 25% | 18% | 6/6, 43 yd, 1 TD |
| Chris MooreWR · Featured Receiver | 13.6 | +4.8 | 68% | 74% | 21% | 31% | 3/5, 46 yd, 1 TD |
| Luke McCaffreyWR · Rotational Receiver | 10.3 | +8.4 | 38% | 37% | 4% | 11% | 1/1, 33 yd, 1 TD |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.1 | +3.3 | 23% | 41% | 14% | 6% | 4/4, 51 yd |
| DJ MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.2 | −1.4 | 94% | 91% | 17% | 22% | 2 car, 10 yd · 3/5, 42 yd |
| Jeremy McNicholsRB · Receiving Back | 6.5 | −0.4 | 32% | 49% | 17% | 6% | 2 car, 5 yd · 3/4, 30 yd |
| Jacory Croskey-MerrittRB · Committee Back | 5.8 | −4.2 | 66% | 51% | 4% | 3% | 17 car, 61 yd · 1/1, 7 yd |
| Kyle MonangaiRB | 5.4 | +1.5 | 34% | 35% | 3% | 0% | 5 car, 19 yd · 1/1, 25 yd |
| Deebo Samuel Sr.WR · Featured Receiver | 5.4 | −4.7 | 72% | 86% | 21% | 13% | 1 car, -1 yd · 4/5, 15 yd |
| Jaylin LaneWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.4 | +1.2 | 42% | 34% | 8% | 17% | 1 car, 7 yd · 1/2, 37 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.2 | −3.9 | 97% | 94% | 17% | 40% | 2/5, 32 yd |
| Olamide ZaccheausWR · Featured Receiver | 4.8 | −6.1 | 84% | 76% | 21% | 22% | 1 car, 4 yd · 2/6, 24 yd |
| Colston LovelandTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.1 | −2.0 | 42% | 50% | 10% | 7% | 2/3, 11 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.0 | −2.3 | 52% | 44% | 7% | 8% | 1/2, 0 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 0.6 | +0.2 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Devin DuvernayWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Colson YankoffTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
3 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 Commanders attack right, the Bears 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.
(:03) 16-J.Moody 38 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-S.Daly, Holder-19-T.Taylor.
Q4 0:03 · Bears · 2nd & 12 at WAS 20 · gained nothing · +0.37 EP · +43.4% win probability
155 snaps placed · 15 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 170 plays across 21 drives, personnel groupings on 155 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 165. 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.
10 of 21 drives ended in points. The longest march was WAS moving 84 yards from the WAS 16 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; WAS attacks right, CHI 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.
170 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
170 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears3
Commanders0How the play was built
Play action, no huddle, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Bears6Commanders0How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a run-pass option, no huddle, a man in motion.
Bears12Commanders0Bears13Commanders0Bears13Commanders6Bears13Commanders7How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
How the play was built
No huddle, a man in motion.
Bears13Commanders10Bears16Commanders10How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears16Commanders16Bears16Commanders17How the play was built
Two in the backfield, a man in motion.
Bears16Commanders23Bears16Commanders24How the play was built
Empty backfield, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears22Commanders24How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
Thrown as a checkdown.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Bears25Commanders24Win 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: Bears at Commanders, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 17/29 | 252 | 1 | 0 | 3 | +3.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift | 14 | 108 | 7.7 | 0 | +6.2 |
| Kyle Monangai | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 0 | −0.5 |
| DJ Moore |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift | 2 | 3 | 67 | 1 | 10% | +6.1 |
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 4 | 51 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tremaine Edmunds | 3 | 9 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 4 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nahshon Wright |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Daniels | 19/26 | 211 | 3 | 1 | 3 | +6.4 |
| 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_06_CHI_WAS
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Commanders closed -5.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 49.5; the game landed 49 — under by 0.5.
Conditions and crew
| 2 |
| 10 |
| 5.0 |
| 0 |
| +0.8 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Caleb Williams | 4 | 3 | 0.8 | 1 | −0.8 |
| 14% |
| +2.7 |
| DJ Moore | 3 | 5 | 42 | 0 | 17% | +1.9 |
| Rome Odunze | 2 | 5 | 32 | 0 | 17% | −2.5 |
| Kyle Monangai | 1 | 1 | 25 | 0 | 3% | +1.7 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 2 | 6 | 24 | 0 | 21% | −2.1 |
| Colston Loveland | 2 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 10% | +0.1 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −1.0 |
| 4 |
| 1 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Byard | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dominique Robinson | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| D'Marco Jackson | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Shemar Turner | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Owens | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 17 | 61 | 3.6 | 0 | −6.7 |
| Jayden Daniels | 10 | 52 | 5.2 | 0 | −2.8 |
| Jaylin Lane | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Jeremy McNichols | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Deebo Samuel Sr. | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | −0.7 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Moore | 3 | 5 | 46 | 1 | 21% | +3.5 |
| Zach Ertz | 6 | 6 | 43 | 1 | 25% | +5.1 |
| Jaylin Lane | 1 | 2 | 37 | 0 | 8% | +2.1 |
| Luke McCaffrey | 1 | 1 | 33 | 1 | 4% | +3.5 |
| Jeremy McNichols | 3 | 4 | 30 | 0 | 17% | +3.3 |
| Deebo Samuel Sr. | 4 | 5 | 15 | 0 | 21% | −5.2 |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 4% | +0.2 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bobby Wagner | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trey Amos | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Frankie Luvu | 4 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Daron Payne | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeremy Reaves | 3 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quan Martin | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Darnell Savage | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalyn Holmes | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mike Sainristil | 0 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jer'Zhan Newton | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
