The biggest swing of the game · Q4 6:16 · 2nd and 2
Jonathan Taylor
Colts
(6:16) 28-J.Taylor up the middle for 83 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
27.1
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
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.
connecting · reading the slate
Game Center
2025 Week 10 · Sun, Nov 9, 2025 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 10
It turned at Q4 6:16, 2nd and 2, on Jonathan Taylor — 27.1 win-probability points to the Colts on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Indianapolis Colts 31–25. Biggest swing: Q4 6:16, Colts +27.1% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 6:16 · 2nd and 2
Jonathan Taylor
Colts
(6:16) 28-J.Taylor up the middle for 83 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
27.1
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Red zone
Falcons owned this one and still lost it — 3 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Colts at 2 touchdowns on 7 trips.
Falconsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Colts won this one — 13 chunk plays, against Falcons at 7 chunk plays.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Colts won this one — 55% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Falcons at 45% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Colts won this one — 2 of 12 on third down, against Falcons at 0 of 8 on third down.
Coltsthe 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 8.6 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 19 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Falcons.
(6:16) 28-J.Taylor up the middle for 83 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jonathan Taylor's 8-yard rushing touchdown with 3:36 left in overtime put Indianapolis Colts ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
10 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Colts ahead 6–3 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
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: Falcons ran 60 snaps at a 53% dropback rate against Colts’s 75 at 53%. Red-zone trips: Falcons 3, Colts 7.
Colts won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.15 expected points added per play vs -0.07.
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.
2 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.
IND's fourth-and-short go rate, 100.0%, is past their previous high of 83.3% in week 9 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 10.
4 fourth-and-short calls this game, floor 3 — 9 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 35.7 points. · +1.5σ from their own normal
IND's early-down pass rate turned over: 77.8% in week 9 against 50.0% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
58 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.8 points. · −0.6σ 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 21 pts
Over Expected room →right on their number · −0.8 vs their -6.3 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (−0.12× that swing) · 59 snaps
inside their normal wobble · −6.3 vs their -0.6 pts, and they swing ±8.4 week to week (−0.75× that swing) · 74 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 82%
Tendencies room →right on their number · −5.4 vs their 50.5%, and they swing ±11.9 week to week (−0.46× that swing) · 51 early downs
inside their normal wobble · −6.3 vs their 56.3%, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (−0.64× that swing) · 58 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -7% to 54%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +7.2 vs their 21.0%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (+0.66× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
right on their number · +1.9 vs their 28.1%, and they swing ±9.8 week to week (+0.19× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -48% to 139%
Fourth Down room →Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 35.8%.
leaned — went for it · +52.6 vs their 47.4%, and they swing ±35.7 week to week (+1.47× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 5% to 70%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +12.3 vs their 37.7%, and they swing ±12.5 week to week (+0.98× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
inside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 32.0%, and they swing ±10.4 week to week (+0.53× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 32%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +5.5 vs their 14.5%, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (+0.95× that swing) · 40 dropbacks
right on their number · −0.2 vs their 12.7%, and they swing ±7.5 week to week (−0.03× that swing) · 32 dropbacks
IND's fourth-and-short go rate was the night's one real departure: 100.0%, 52.6 points above their season mean of 47.4% and 1.5 times their own 35.7-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.
Atlanta Falcons
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 3 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 3
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 4 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 4
Who moved the needle
Passing · IND
19/26, 255 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-2.1 expected points added · +3.1% completion over expected
Passing · ATL
12/28, 177 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
-8.1 expected points added · -16.3% 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.
Jonathan Taylor banked 22.8 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan TaylorRB · Bell Cow Back | 49.6 | +22.8 | 91% | 85% | 12% | 0% | 32 car, 244 yd, 3 TD · 3/3, 42 yd |
| Drake LondonWR · Alpha Receiver | 24.4 | +8.8 | 98% | 100% | 32% | 31% | 6/8, 104 yd, 1 TD |
| Alec PierceWR · Alpha Receiver | 18.4 | +5.5 | 95% | 93% | 27% | 60% | 4/7, 84 yd, 1 TD |
| Tyler WarrenTE · Alpha Receiver | 17.9 | +1.8 | 88% | 88% | 38% | 23% | 8/10, 99 yd |
| Tyler AllgeierRB · Committee Back | 17.7 | +6.3 | 37% | 31% | 0% | — | 11 car, 57 yd, 2 TD |
| Daniel JonesQB · Starter QB | 15.5 | −2.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/26, 255 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 7 car, 53 yd |
| Michael Penix Jr.QB · Starter QB | 11.0 | −3.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 12/28, 177 yd, 1 TD · 1 car, -1 yd |
| Bijan RobinsonRB · Committee Back | 10.8 | −0.2 | 86% | 94% | 8% | 1% | 17 car, 84 yd · 2/2, 4 yd |
| Kyle PittsTE · Featured Receiver | 5.8 | −5.8 | 92% | 97% | 20% | 27% | 2/5, 38 yd |
| Michael PittmanWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.9 | +0.9 | 81% | 88% | 8% | 7% | 2/2, 19 yd |
| Darnell MooneyWR · Alpha Receiver | 2.7 | −10.6 | 90% | 94% | 32% | 31% | 1/8, 17 yd |
| Charlie WoernerTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.4 | +0.9 | 40% | 31% | 4% | 2% | 1/1, 14 yd |
| Ashton DulinWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | +1.1 | 19% | 13% | 0% | — | 1 car, 22 yd |
| Ameer AbdullahRB | 1.8 | +0.3 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Josh DownsWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.3 | −1.5 | 47% | 57% | 8% | 2% | 1/2, 3 yd |
| Tyler GoodsonRB | 0.4 | −0.2 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| David SillsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.0 | 49% | 53% | 4% | 8% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| KhaDarel HodgeWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Feleipe FranksTE | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Jamal AgnewWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Mo Alie-CoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.4 | 45% | 43% | 4% | 7% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Andrew OgletreeTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 25% | 20% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Laquon TreadwellWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
6 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 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 Colts attack right, the Falcons 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.
(6:16) 28-J.Taylor up the middle for 83 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q4 6:16 · Colts · 2nd & 2 at IND 17 · gained 83 · +6.43 EP · +27.6% win probability
169 snaps placed · 11 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 180 plays across 25 drives, personnel groupings on 169 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 174. 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 25 drives ended in points. The longest march was IND moving 91 yards from the IND 9 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND attacks right, ATL 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.
180 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
180 plays
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
A screen, play action, a man in motion.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
A man 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.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Empty backfield, nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
No huddle, nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Win 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: Falcons at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Penix Jr. | 12/28 | 177 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −8.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bijan Robinson | 17 | 84 | 4.9 | 0 | +0.2 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 11 | 57 | 5.2 | 2 | +3.8 |
| Michael Penix Jr. |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drake London | 6 | 8 | 104 | 1 | 32% | +7.8 |
| Kyle Pitts | 2 | 5 | 38 | 0 | 20% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier Watts | 6 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jessie Bates | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| David Onyemata |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Jones | 19/26 | 255 | 1 | 1 | 7 | −2.1 |
| 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_10_ATL_IND
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Colts closed -6.5, won by 6 — but didn't cover.
Total closed 48.5; the game landed 56 — over by 7.5.
Conditions and crew
| 1 |
| -1 |
| -1.0 |
| 0 |
| +0.0 |
| +0.6 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 8 | 17 | 0 | 32% | −3.3 |
| Charlie Woerner | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 4% | +1.2 |
| Bijan Robinson | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 8% | −1.8 |
| David Sills | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −1.5 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Ronnie Harrison | 5 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kaden Elliss | 1 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| A.J. Terrell | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keith Taylor | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalon Walker | 4 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zach Harrison | 1 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Billy Bowman Jr. | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 32 | 244 | 7.6 | 3 | +9.5 |
| Daniel Jones | 7 | 53 | 7.6 | 0 | +2.1 |
| Ashton Dulin | 1 | 22 | 22.0 | 0 | +1.9 |
| Tyler Goodson | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Warren | 8 | 10 | 99 | 0 | 38% | +7.8 |
| Alec Pierce | 4 | 7 | 84 | 1 | 27% | +5.9 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 3 | 3 | 42 | 0 | 12% | +1.7 |
| Michael Pittman | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 8% | +1.1 |
| Ameer Abdullah | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 4% | +0.0 |
| Josh Downs | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 8% | −3.7 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −1.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaire Franklin | 6 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Germaine Pratt | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Nick Cross | 3 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sauce Gardner | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Camryn Bynum | 4 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Adetomiwa Adebawore | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Laiatu Latu | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grover Stewart | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyler Goodson | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenny Moore II | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |