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 9 · Sun, Nov 2, 2025 · Nissan Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 9
It turned at Q1 11:25, 2nd and 5, on Cody Barton — 14.2 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
Los Angeles Chargers 27–20. Biggest swing: Q1 11:25, Titans +14.2% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 11:25 · 2nd and 5
Cody Barton
Titans
(11:25) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass short right intended for 13-K.Allen INTERCEPTED by 50-C.Barton at LAC 24. 50-C.Barton for 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
14.2
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Chargers won this one — 7 of 13 on third down, against Titans at 1 of 9 on third down.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Chargers won this one — 58% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Titans at 36% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Chargers won this one — 3 touchdowns on 4 trips, against Titans at 0 touchdowns on 2 trips.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Running the ball
Chargers won this one — -0.00 expected points per carry, against Titans at -0.32 expected points per carry.
Chargersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Who won it for them
Note
The model against the market, the momentum underneath, every drive — scrub to replay it
The model and the market were 24.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 43 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Titans.
(11:25) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass short right intended for 13-K.Allen INTERCEPTED by 50-C.Barton at LAC 24. 50-C.Barton for 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Cameron Dicker's 52-yard field goal with 0:25 left in the 2nd put Los Angeles Chargers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 2 scores that followed.
Cameron Dicker52-yd field goal52-yard field goalholder J.Scott · snap R.LovatoLead never changed again+320–179 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Chargerscategory by categoryTitans
Chargers ahead 6–3 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, ±0.35 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: Chargers ran 64 snaps at a 61% dropback rate against Titans’s 44 at 59%. Red-zone trips: Chargers 4, Titans 2.
Chargers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.08 expected points added per play vs -0.18.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
10 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.
1 of 12 readings cleared their snap floor in this game, which is under the three this column needs before it will draw the rule. The readings themselves stand.
TEN's play-action rate, 38.5%, is past their previous high of 28.9% in week 3 — the highest of their 9 charted games through week 9.
26 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.1 points. · +2.4σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
10 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 -19 pts to 21 pts
Over Expected room →Chargers6.3 ptsinside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 0.8 pts, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+0.69× that swing) · 64 snaps
Titans-5.8 ptsright on their number · −1.9 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±5.4 week to week (−0.36× that swing) · 44 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 27% to 90%
Tendencies room →Chargers56.9%right on their number · −1.7 vs their 58.6%, and they swing ±12.3 week to week (−0.14× that swing) · 51 early downs
Titans58.8%right on their number · −0.4 vs their 59.3%, and they swing ±10.4 week to week (−0.04× that swing) · 34 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -2% to 44%
Tendencies room →Chargers35.9%leaned — faked the run · +12.5 vs their 23.4%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+1.61× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
Titans38.5%off script — faked the run · +19.3 vs their 19.1%, and they swing ±8.1 week to week (+2.39× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -35% to 106%
Fourth Down room →Chargers—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 21.7%.
Titans—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 35.2%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -13% to 64%
Tendencies room →Chargers42.3%leaned — sent pressure · +16.8 vs their 25.5%, and they swing ±15.1 week to week (+1.12× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Titans35.9%leaned — sent pressure · +10.4 vs their 25.5%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (+1.20× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -4% to 34%
Tendencies room →Chargers19.2%inside their normal wobble · +4.1 vs their 15.2%, and they swing ±7.3 week to week (+0.56× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Titans25.6%leaned — got home · +9.7 vs their 15.9%, and they swing ±5.9 week to week (+1.64× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
TEN's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 38.5%, 19.3 points above their season mean of 19.1% and 2.4 times their own 8.1-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.
Los Angeles Chargers
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Tennessee Titans
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · LAC
19/29, 250 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
1.8 expected points added · +6.5% completion over expected
Passing · TEN
Cam WardQB
12/21, 145 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-1.7 expected points added · -11.8% completion over expected
Receiving · LAC
5/5 for 68 yds, 0 TD
18% of team targets · 5.8 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.
Oronde Gadsden II banked 3.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin HerbertQB · Starter QB | 27.7 | +1.3 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/29, 250 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 9 car, 57 yd, 1 TD |
| Quentin JohnstonWR · Featured Receiver | 15.3 | +2.5 | 68% | 82% | 21% | 20% | 4/6, 53 yd, 1 TD |
| Oronde Gadsden IITE · Rotational Receiver | 11.8 | +3.1 | 80% | 87% | 18% | 16% | 5/5, 68 yd |
| Ladd McConkeyWR · Featured Receiver | 9.6 | −0.2 | 69% | 85% | 21% | 16% | 4/6, 56 yd |
| Tyjae SpearsRB · Committee Back | 9.2 | +1.2 | 45% | 50% | 14% | 1% | 7 car, 26 yd · 3/3, 36 yd |
| Tony PollardRB · Committee Back | 7.8 | −5.8 | 62% | 54% | 10% | 4% | 10 car, 56 yd · 1/2, 12 yd |
| Elic AyomanorWR · Alpha Receiver | 7.6 | −1.8 | 64% | 69% | 29% | 39% | 3/6, 46 yd |
| Chimere DikeWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.5 | +1.9 | 87% | 92% | 14% | 3% | 1/3, 5 yd |
| Scott MatlockRB | 7.2 | +3.0 | 43% | 21% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 2 yd, 1 TD |
| Cam WardQB · Starter QB | 6.4 | −1.7 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 12/21, 145 yd · 2 car, 6 yd |
| Keenan AllenWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.1 | −0.9 | 37% | 54% | 18% | 25% | 2/5, 41 yd |
| Jaret PattersonRB | 4.4 | −0.8 | 28% | 13% | 0% | — | 9 car, 44 yd |
| Tre HarrisWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | +0.8 | 46% | 36% | 7% | 4% | 2/2, 18 yd |
| Van JeffersonWR · Featured Receiver | 3.1 | −4.5 | 83% | 88% | 19% | 45% | 1/4, 21 yd |
| Kimani VidalRB · Committee Back | 3.0 | −6.9 | 72% | 87% | 4% | 2% | 12 car, 30 yd · 0/1, 0 yd |
| Chig OkonkwoTE | 3.0 | +0.3 | — | — | — | — | No snap count on file, so his shares read as a dash. |
| Gunnar HelmTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.5 | +0.9 | 45% | 35% | 5% | 7% | 1/1, 15 yd |
| Tucker FiskTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | +0.8 | 48% | 26% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 12 yd |
| KeAndre Lambert-SmithWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.8 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Derius DavisWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| Julius ChestnutRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| David Martin-RobinsonTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Mason KinseyWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
6 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 Titans attack right, the Chargers 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.
(11:25) (Shotgun) 10-J.Herbert pass short right intended for 13-K.Allen INTERCEPTED by 50-C.Barton at LAC 24. 50-C.Barton for 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q1 11:25 · Chargers · 2nd & 5 at LAC 20 · gained nothing · -7.14 EP · −17.5% win probability
144 snaps placed · 7 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 151 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 144 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 146. 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.
7 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was LAC moving 99 yards from the LAC 1 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; TEN attacks right, LAC 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.
151 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
151 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted.
Chargers0
Titans6Chargers0Titans7Chargers6Titans7Chargers7Titans7Chargers7Titans13Chargers7Titans14Chargers10Titans14Chargers16Titans14Chargers17Titans14Chargers17Titans17Chargers20Titans17How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Three in the backfield, a man in motion.
Chargers26Titans17Chargers27Titans17Chargers27Titans20Win 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: Chargers at Titans, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 19/29 | 250 | 2 | 1 | 6 | +1.8 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Herbert | 9 | 57 | 6.3 | 1 | +4.1 |
| Jaret Patterson | 9 | 44 | 4.9 | 0 | −1.0 |
| Kimani Vidal |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oronde Gadsden II | 5 | 5 | 68 | 0 | 18% | +5.8 |
| Ladd McConkey | 4 | 6 | 56 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daiyan Henley | 4 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Derwin James | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Denzel Perryman |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cam Ward | 12/21 | 145 | 0 | 0 | 4 | −1.7 |
| 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_09_LAC_TEN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Chargers closed -10, won by 7 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 47 — over by 2.5.
Conditions and crew
| 12 |
| 30 |
| 2.5 |
| 0 |
| −1.4 |
| 21% |
| +1.9 |
| Quentin Johnston | 4 | 6 | 53 | 1 | 21% | +3.7 |
| Keenan Allen | 2 | 5 | 41 | 0 | 18% | −3.7 |
| Tre Harris | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 7% | +2.0 |
| Tucker Fisk | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 4% | +0.8 |
| Scott Matlock | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4% | +1.2 |
| Kimani Vidal | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.8 |
| KeAndre Lambert-Smith | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.5 |
| 5 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Elijah Molden | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Hart | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| R.J. Mickens | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Odafe Oweh | 2 | 1 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Troy Dye | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Teair Tart | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tony Pollard | 10 | 56 | 5.6 | 0 | −2.5 |
| Tyjae Spears | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 | −2.4 |
| Cam Ward | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | −1.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 6 | 46 | 0 | 29% | +2.3 |
| Tyjae Spears | 3 | 3 | 36 | 0 | 14% | +1.2 |
| Van Jefferson | 1 | 4 | 21 | 0 | 19% | −0.2 |
| Gunnar Helm | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 5% | +1.3 |
| Tony Pollard | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 10% | +0.3 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10% | −1.2 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 14% | −0.3 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedric Gray | 11 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amani Hooker | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cody Barton | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Quandre Diggs | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dre'Mont Jones | 2 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Darrell Baker Jr. | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jalyn Armour-Davis | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jihad Ward | 2 | 2 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 |
| James Lynch | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Joseph-Day | 2 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
