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 10:10 AM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 14 · Sun, Dec 7, 2025 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 14
It turned at Q4 0:27, 4th and 1, on Keisean Nixon — 13.7 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 28–21. Biggest swing: Q4 0:27, Packers +13.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:27 · 4th and 1
Keisean Nixon
Packers
(:27) 18-C.Williams pass deep left intended for 85-C.Kmet INTERCEPTED by 25-K.Nixon at GB -5. Touchback.
13.7
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 — 8 chunk plays, against Bears at 3 chunk plays.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Packers won this one — 8 of 12 on third down, against Bears at 8 of 16 on third down.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 4 trips, against Packers at 1 touchdown on 4 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Throwing the ball
Packers won this one — +0.31 expected points per dropback, against Bears at +0.05 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe 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 9.2 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 18 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(:27) 18-C.Williams pass deep left intended for 85-C.Kmet INTERCEPTED by 25-K.Nixon at GB -5. Touchback.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Josh Jacobs's 2-yard rushing touchdown with 3:37 left in the 4th put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Olamide Zaccheaus1-yd TD catch1-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb Williams · two-point good+811–148 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 5–2 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — explosive plays.
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: Bears ran 69 snaps at a 57% dropback rate against Packers’s 51 at 51%. Red-zone trips: Bears 4, Packers 4.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.24 expected points added per play vs 0.11.
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.
CHI's play-action rate, 53.8%, is past their previous high of 41.7% in week 11 — the highest of their 13 charted games through week 14.
39 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 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 -28 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Bears-3.4 ptsright on their number · +0.4 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±4.1 week to week (+0.10× that swing) · 68 snaps
Packers-8.4 ptsright on their number · −4.0 vs their -4.3 pts, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.43× that swing) · 51 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 81%
Tendencies room →Bears54.0%right on their number · −0.5 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.06× that swing) · 50 early downs
Packers46.2%right on their number · −4.1 vs their 50.3%, and they swing ±11.9 week to week (−0.35× that swing) · 39 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 5% to 57%
Tendencies room →Bears53.8%off script — faked the run · +22.2 vs their 31.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+2.36× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
Packers19.2%inside their normal wobble · −6.9 vs their 26.1%, and they swing ±7.9 week to week (−0.88× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -30% to 110%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 44.8%.
Packers—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 39.7%.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 58%
Tendencies room →Bears34.6%right on their number · +4.8 vs their 29.9%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (+0.42× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Packers33.3%leaned — sent pressure · +9.2 vs their 24.2%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+1.17× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 37%
Tendencies room →Bears3.8%leaned — stayed blocked · −9.2 vs their 13.0%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−1.14× that swing) · 26 dropbacks
Packers15.4%right on their number · −0.9 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.11× that swing) · 39 dropbacks
CHI's play-action rate was the night's one real departure: 53.8%, 22.2 points above their season mean of 31.6% and 2.4 times their own 9.4-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
17/25, 234 yds, 3 TD, 1 INT
8.0 expected points added · +12.0% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
19/35, 186 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
-0.2 expected points added · +1.9% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
4/6 for 67 yds, 0 TD
21% of team targets · 6.0 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.
Christian Watson banked 16.7 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian WatsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 24.9 | +16.7 | 83% | 81% | 17% | 15% | 4/4, 89 yd, 2 TD |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 19.3 | +8.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 17/25, 234 yd, 3 TD, 1 INT · 1 car, -1 yd |
| Josh JacobsRB · Bell Cow Back | 17.2 | −0.6 | 72% | 58% | 9% | 0% | 20 car, 86 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 6 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 14.9 | −5.4 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/35, 186 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 4 car, 15 yd |
| Colston LovelandTE · Rotational Receiver | 12.9 | +2.3 | 59% | 59% | 18% | 15% | 4/5, 29 yd, 1 TD |
| Bo MeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.5 | +7.4 | 17% | 19% | 9% | 26% | 1/2, 45 yd, 1 TD |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 11.2 | −4.8 | 57% | 64% | 14% | 0% | 13 car, 63 yd · 3/4, 19 yd |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Featured Receiver | 11.0 | +1.4 | 71% | 69% | 21% | 29% | 1 car, 3 yd · 4/6, 67 yd |
| Jayden ReedWR · Rotational Receiver | 9.3 | +1.3 | 47% | 65% | 17% | 9% | 2 car, 22 yd · 4/4, 31 yd |
| Olamide ZaccheausWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.7 | +3.5 | 79% | 85% | 11% | 10% | 2/3, 7 yd, 1 TD |
| Kyle MonangaiRB · Committee Back | 8.7 | −1.9 | 41% | 33% | 7% | 1% | 14 car, 57 yd · 1/2, 0 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.2 | −0.1 | 76% | 72% | 11% | 25% | 2/3, 42 yd |
| Luke MusgraveTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.2 | −2.3 | 40% | 35% | 17% | 20% | 2/4, 22 yd |
| Devin DuvernayWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.4 | +1.7 | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
| John FitzPatrickTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.4 | +0.6 | 57% | 38% | 9% | 1% | 2/2, 14 yd |
| Josh WhyleTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.1 | +1.2 | 42% | 46% | 4% | 4% | 1/1, 21 yd |
| Chris BrooksRB | 1.6 | +0.1 | 15% | 27% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 6 yd |
| Durham SmytheTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.2 | −0.3 | 29% | 26% | 4% | 0% | 1/1, 2 yd |
| Emanuel WilsonRB | 1.0 | −1.6 | 15% | 19% | 0% | — | 3 car, 10 yd |
| DJ MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.6 | −3.9 | 83% | 85% | 11% | 13% | 1/3, -4 yd |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Romeo DoubsWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −3.8 | 81% | 73% | 9% | 23% | 0/2, 0 yd |
| Matthew GoldenWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −2.0 | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
3 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 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.
(5:56) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass deep middle intended for 0-M.Golden INTERCEPTED by 35-C.Gardner-Johnson at CHI 36. 35-C.Gardner-Johnson ran ob at GB 36 for 28 yards (50-Z.Tom).
Q1 5:56 · Packers · 3rd & 19 at GB 48 · gained nothing · -4.47 EP · −14.4% win probability
150 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: 161 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 150 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 156. 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 CHI moving 83 yards from the CHI 17 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB 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.
161 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
161 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.
Bears0
Packers6Bears0Packers7Bears3Packers7Bears3Packers13Bears3Packers14Bears9Packers14Bears11Packers14How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Bears11Packers20Bears11Packers21Bears14Packers21Bears20Packers21Bears21Packers21How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A run-pass option, a man in motion.
Bears21Packers27Bears21Packers28How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, from outside the pocket, it should have been intercepted.
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: Bears at Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 19/35 | 186 | 2 | 1 | 1 | −0.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift | 13 | 63 | 4.8 | 0 | +4.5 |
| Kyle Monangai | 14 | 57 | 4.1 | 0 | +1.7 |
| Caleb Williams |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 6 | 67 | 0 | 21% | +6.0 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 3 | 42 | 0 | 11% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Gardner-Johnson | 6 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Kevin Byard | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Booker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 17/25 | 234 | 3 | 1 | 1 | +8.0 |
| 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_14_CHI_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 -6.5 and covered, winning by 7.
Total closed 44.5; the game landed 49 — over by 4.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 4 |
| 15 |
| 3.8 |
| 0 |
| +1.6 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.2 |
| −0.1 |
| Colston Loveland | 4 | 5 | 29 | 1 | 18% | +3.3 |
| Devin Duvernay | 1 | 1 | 24 | 0 | 4% | +2.0 |
| D'Andre Swift | 3 | 4 | 19 | 0 | 14% | −0.6 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 2 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 11% | +0.4 |
| Durham Smythe | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4% | −0.4 |
| Kyle Monangai | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −1.6 |
| DJ Moore | 1 | 3 | -4 | 0 | 11% | −2.9 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| D'Marco Jackson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grady Jarrett | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nahshon Wright | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Billings | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Jacobs | 20 | 86 | 4.3 | 1 | +3.3 |
| Jayden Reed | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 | +1.2 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Jordan Love | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | 4 | 4 | 89 | 2 | 17% | +9.6 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 2 | 45 | 1 | 9% | +3.8 |
| Jayden Reed | 4 | 4 | 31 | 0 | 17% | +1.4 |
| Luke Musgrave | 2 | 4 | 22 | 0 | 17% | +1.4 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 1 | 21 | 0 | 4% | +2.1 |
| John FitzPatrick | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 9% | +0.7 |
| Josh Jacobs | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 9% | −0.3 |
| Chris Brooks | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4% | −0.8 |
| Matthew Golden | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −4.5 |
| Romeo Doubs | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9% | −1.9 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edgerrin Cooper | 5 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quay Walker | 3 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evan Williams | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Xavier McKinney | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Bullard | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kingsley Enagbare | 4 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colby Wooden | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Karl Brooks | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
