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 6 · Sun, Oct 12, 2025 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 6
It turned at Q3 4:50, 4th and 2, on Tanner Hudson — 8.4 win-probability points to the Bengals on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 27–18. Biggest swing: Q3 4:50, Bengals +8.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 4:50 · 4th and 2
Tanner Hudson
Bengals
(4:50) (Shotgun) 16-J.Flacco pass short middle to 87-T.Hudson for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on GB-21-N.Hobbs, Defensive Holding, declined.
8.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Explosive plays
Packers won this one — 10 chunk plays, against Bengals at 1 chunk play.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Packers won this one — 58% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bengals at 49% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Bengals owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 2 trips, against Packers at 3 touchdowns on 4 trips.
Bengalsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Bengals owned this one and still lost it — no giveaways, against Packers at 1 giveaway.
Bengalsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
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 14.5 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 38 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bengals.
(4:50) (Shotgun) 16-J.Flacco pass short middle to 87-T.Hudson for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Penalty on GB-21-N.Hobbs, Defensive Holding, declined.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Lucas Havrisik's 43-yard field goal with 14:20 left in the 2nd put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 7 scores that followed.
Lucas Havrisik43-yd field goal43-yard field goalholder D.Whelan · snap M.OrzechLead never changed again+30–38 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bengalscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 7–1 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Bengals, in 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, ±0.35 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 61 snaps at a 74% dropback rate against Packers’s 59 at 54%. Red-zone trips: Bengals 2, Packers 4.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.21 expected points added per play vs 0.09.
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.
Nothing cleared the bars. No reading led the week's slate, set a season mark, reversed the week before, or sat two of the team's own standard deviations off their number — which is what most Sundays look like, and is the finding rather than a gap.
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 -28 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Bengals2.1 ptsright on their number · +0.5 vs their 1.6 pts, and they swing ±5.2 week to week (+0.10× that swing) · 60 snaps
Packers0.5 ptsinside their normal wobble · +4.9 vs their -4.3 pts, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.52× that swing) · 59 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 84%
Tendencies room →Bengals70.5%leaned — passed early · +9.0 vs their 61.4%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+1.09× that swing) · 44 early downs
Packers46.8%right on their number · −3.5 vs their 50.3%, and they swing ±11.9 week to week (−0.29× that swing) · 47 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -3% to 47%
Tendencies room →Bengals11.1%inside their normal wobble · −5.1 vs their 16.2%, and they swing ±7.2 week to week (−0.70× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
Packers28.1%right on their number · +2.0 vs their 26.1%, and they swing ±7.9 week to week (+0.25× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -35% to 110%
Fourth Down room →Bengals50.0%inside their normal wobble · +16.0 vs their 34.0%, and they swing ±26.8 week to week (+0.60× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Packers33.3%right on their number · −6.4 vs their 39.7%, and they swing ±27.4 week to week (−0.23× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 46%
Tendencies room →Bengals18.8%right on their number · −2.4 vs their 21.2%, and they swing ±9.9 week to week (−0.25× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Packers31.1%inside their normal wobble · +6.9 vs their 24.2%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+0.89× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 37%
Tendencies room →Bengals12.5%right on their number · −1.4 vs their 13.9%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−0.18× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
Packers11.1%inside their normal wobble · −5.2 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
CIN's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 70.5%, 9.0 points above their season mean of 61.4% and 1.1 times their own 8.2-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.
Cincinnati Bengals
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 4 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
19/26, 259 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
7.4 expected points added · +6.6% completion over expected
Passing · CIN
29/45, 219 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
6.5 expected points added · +4.7% 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.
Josh Jacobs banked 13.9 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh JacobsRB · Committee Back | 32.0 | +13.9 | 79% | 78% | 19% | 2% | 18 car, 93 yd, 2 TD · 5/5, 57 yd |
| Ja'Marr ChaseWR · Alpha Receiver | 25.1 | +7.4 | 100% | 96% | 30% | 48% | 1 car, -3 yd · 10/12, 94 yd, 1 TD |
| Joe FlaccoQB · Starter QB | 18.8 | +5.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 29/45, 219 yd, 2 TD |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 15.0 | +1.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/26, 259 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 7 car, 26 yd |
| Matthew GoldenWR · Featured Receiver | 13.2 | +4.1 | 69% | 69% | 19% | 36% | 2 car, 16 yd · 3/5, 86 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Rotational Receiver | 12.3 | +8.8 | 92% | 94% | 8% | 10% | 2/2, 43 yd, 1 TD |
| Tee HigginsWR · Featured Receiver | 11.2 | +0.1 | 80% | 81% | 20% | 45% | 5/8, 62 yd |
| Tanner HudsonTE · Rotational Receiver | 11.0 | +2.1 | 25% | 34% | 13% | 3% | 4/5, 10 yd, 1 TD |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Alpha Receiver | 10.5 | −3.9 | 85% | 88% | 35% | 36% | 5/9, 55 yd |
| Chase BrownRB | 8.9 | +0.4 | 54% | 51% | 5% | 0% | 9 car, 42 yd · 2/2, 7 yd |
| Noah FantTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.7 | +1.6 | 49% | 43% | 10% | 5% | 4/4, 27 yd |
| Samaje PerineRB | 5.2 | −1.1 | 46% | 45% | 8% | 0% | 6 car, 16 yd · 2/3, 16 yd |
| Dontayvion WicksWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.5 | +0.6 | 34% | 38% | 8% | 4% | 2/2, 15 yd |
| Luke MusgraveTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.7 | −1.9 | 34% | 34% | 8% | 14% | 1/2, 7 yd |
| Emanuel WilsonRB | 1.7 | −1.3 | 18% | 19% | 4% | 0% | 3 car, 11 yd · 1/1, -4 yd |
| Andrei IosivasWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.5 | −3.5 | 94% | 89% | 10% | 5% | 1/4, 5 yd |
| Drew SampleTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.8 | −1.8 | 34% | 26% | 5% | 0% | 1/2, -2 yd |
| Bo MeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.3 | −0.4 | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Savion WilliamsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.3 | −0.5 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Chris BrooksRB | 0.1 | −0.4 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Charlie JonesWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 1 line has no expected-points read and sits 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 Packers 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.
(8:51) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass short right intended for 87-R.Doubs INTERCEPTED by 22-G.Stone (20-D.Turner) [44-D.Knight] at CIN 11. 22-G.Stone ran ob at CIN 36 for 25 yards (10-J.Love).
Q1 8:51 · Packers · 3rd & 5 at CIN 19 · gained nothing · -5.62 EP · −15.4% win probability
153 snaps placed · 14 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 167 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 153 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 162. 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.
8 of 18 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 80 yards from the GB 20 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB 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.
167 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
167 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
Bengals0
Packers3Bengals0Packers9Bengals0Packers10Bengals6Packers10Bengals7Packers10Bengals7Packers16Bengals7Packers17Bengals10Packers17Bengals10Packers23Bengals10Packers24Bengals16Packers24Bengals18Packers24Bengals18Packers27Win 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 Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Flacco | 29/45 | 219 | 2 | 0 | 1 | +6.5 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chase Brown | 9 | 42 | 4.7 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Samaje Perine | 6 | 16 | 2.7 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Ja'Marr Chase |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ja'Marr Chase | 10 | 12 | 94 | 1 | 30% | +6.8 |
| Tee Higgins | 5 | 8 | 62 | 0 | 20% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrett Carter | 7 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daxton Hill | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordan Battle |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 19/26 | 259 | 1 | 1 | 1 | +7.4 |
| 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_CIN_GB
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Packers closed -14, won by 9 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 45 — over by 0.5.
Conditions and crew
| 1 |
| -3 |
| -3.0 |
| 0 |
| −1.1 |
| +5.6 |
| Noah Fant | 4 | 4 | 27 | 0 | 10% | +0.7 |
| Samaje Perine | 2 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 8% | −1.4 |
| Tanner Hudson | 4 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 13% | +0.4 |
| Chase Brown | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 5% | +0.7 |
| Andrei Iosivas | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 10% | −1.8 |
| Drew Sample | 1 | 2 | -2 | 0 | 5% | −1.4 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Demetrius Knight Jr. | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joseph Ossai | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Taylor-Britt | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| DJ Turner II | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 |
| Logan Wilson | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geno Stone | 3 | 0 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Myles Murphy | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Jacobs | 18 | 93 | 5.2 | 2 | +1.1 |
| Jordan Love | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 | +3.9 |
| Matthew Golden | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 | +1.2 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 3 | 11 | 3.7 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Savion Williams | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Chris Brooks | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew Golden | 3 | 5 | 86 | 0 | 19% | +6.6 |
| Josh Jacobs | 5 | 5 | 57 | 0 | 19% | +3.3 |
| Romeo Doubs | 5 | 9 | 55 | 0 | 35% | −5.3 |
| Tucker Kraft | 2 | 2 | 43 | 1 | 8% | +3.7 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 8% | +2.0 |
| Luke Musgrave | 1 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 8% | −0.3 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 1 | 1 | -4 | 0 | 4% | −1.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edgerrin Cooper | 4 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quay Walker | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evan Williams | 1 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Bullard | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xavier McKinney | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Nate Hobbs | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lukas Van Ness | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colby Wooden | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
