The biggest swing of the game · OT 4:57 · 1st and 10
DJ Moore
Bears
(4:57) 18-C.Williams pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 46 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
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.
polling · 1800s tick · as of 12:43 AM ET · 16 to play
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 16 · Sat, Dec 20, 2025 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 16
It turned at OT 4:57, 1st and 10, on DJ Moore — 40.9 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
The biggest swing of the game · OT 4:57 · 1st and 10
DJ Moore
Bears
(4:57) 18-C.Williams pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 46 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Chicago Bears 22–16. Biggest swing: OT 4:57, Bears +40.9% win probability on one snap.
40.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Third down
Packers owned this one and still lost it — 6 of 12 on third down, against Bears at 2 of 11 on third down.
Packersthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Bears won this one — 1 touchdown on 2 trips, against Packers at 0 touchdowns on 5 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Bears won this one — no giveaways, against Packers at 1 giveaway.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Packers owned this one and still lost it — +0.38 expected points per dropback, against Bears at +0.24 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe 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 2.0 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 7 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Bears.
(4:57) 18-C.Williams pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 46 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
DJ Moore's 46-yard touchdown catch with 4:57 left in overtime put Chicago Bears ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
9 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bears ahead 5–3 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, ±0.38 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: Packers ran 68 snaps at a 46% dropback rate against Bears’s 60 at 62%. Red-zone trips: Packers 5, Bears 2.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.10 expected points added per play vs 0.06.
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.
CHI's blitz rate sent, 12.9%, is past their previous low of 17.2% in week 2 — the lowest of their 15 charted games through week 16.
31 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.2 points.
CHI's play-action rate turned over: 40.6% in week 15 against 21.6% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.0 of their own weekly swings across the two.
37 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 points.
GB's early-down pass rate turned over: 68.1% in week 15 against 39.6% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.4 of their own weekly swings across the two.
53 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.9 points.
CHI's sack or hit rate turned over: 35.7% in week 15 against 12.9% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
31 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.0 points.
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 →right on their number · −0.4 vs their -4.3 pts, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.04× that swing) · 68 snaps
leaned — ran more than the situation asked · −5.2 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±4.1 week to week (−1.25× that swing) · 60 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 81%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · −10.7 vs their 50.3%, and they swing ±11.9 week to week (−0.90× that swing) · 53 early downs
right on their number · +4.2 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.44× that swing) · 46 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 5% to 56%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +6.1 vs their 26.1%, and they swing ±7.9 week to week (+0.78× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
leaned — dropped back clean · −10.0 vs their 31.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−1.06× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -30% to 110%
Fourth Down room →inside their normal wobble · +20.3 vs their 39.7%, and they swing ±27.4 week to week (+0.74× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
inside their normal wobble · +15.2 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±19.2 week to week (+0.79× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 58%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · +5.6 vs their 24.2%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+0.71× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
leaned — sat back · −17.0 vs their 29.9%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (−1.51× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 37%
Tendencies room →inside their normal wobble · −5.5 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (−0.66× that swing) · 37 dropbacks
right on their number · −0.1 vs their 13.0%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−0.01× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
CHI's blitz rate sent was the night's one real departure: 12.9%, 17.0 points below their season mean of 29.9% and 1.5 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.
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 5 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 5
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
19/34, 250 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
5.7 expected points added · +0.6% completion over expected
Passing · GB
9/11, 121 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
7.5 expected points added · +20.3% completion over expected
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
DJ Moore banked 9.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21.9 | +9.1 | 95% | 86% | 24% | 37% | 1 car, 12 yd · 5/7, 97 yd, 1 TD | |
| 21.0 | +2.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/34, 250 yd, 2 TD · 3 car, 30 yd | |
| 19.4 | +6.8 | 62% | 58% | 25% | 43% | 5/6, 84 yd, 1 TD | |
| 13.2 | −1.1 | 64% | — | 0% | — | 9/11, 121 yd, 1 TD · 10 car, 44 yd | |
| 12.3 | +2.4 | 45% | 38% | 14% | 3% | 9 car, 50 yd · 3/4, 43 yd | |
| 10.1 | +3.5 | 27% | 24% | 10% | 13% | 2/3, 21 yd, 1 TD | |
| 9.0 | −2.5 | 55% | 54% | 7% | 0% | 13 car, 58 yd · 2/2, 12 yd | |
| 8.2 | +1.4 | 46% | 32% | 0% | — | 14 car, 82 yd | |
| 7.1 | +1.5 | 64% | 68% | 13% | 8% | 1 car, 6 yd · 3/3, 35 yd | |
| 6.8 | +1.6 | 76% | 77% | 13% | 17% | 3/3, 38 yd | |
| 6.0 | −3.4 | 83% | 81% | 17% | 12% | 3/5, 30 yd | |
| 5.3 | −5.2 | 86% | 84% | 17% | 16% | 2/5, 33 yd | |
| 4.8 | −8.1 | 39% | 26% | 8% | 0% | 12 car, 36 yd · 2/2, 12 yd | |
| 3.8 | −5.5 | 36% | — | 0% | — | 8/13, 77 yd · 2 car, 7 yd | |
| 3.7 | −12.1 | 62% | 65% | 25% | 30% | 2/6, 17 yd | |
| 3.4 | −0.7 | 77% | 73% | 10% | 4% | 2/3, 14 yd | |
| 3.2 | +0.5 | 42% | 26% | 8% | 5% | 2/2, 12 yd | |
| 0.9 | −0.4 | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. | |
| 0.4 | 0.0 | 21% | 32% | 0% | — | 1 car, 4 yd | |
| 0.4 | −3.0 | 31% | 19% | 4% | 0% | 2 car, 4 yd · 0/1, 0 yd | |
| 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. | |
| 0.0 | −1.0 | 36% | 10% | 4% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
2 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 Bears attack right, the Packers 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.
(4:57) 18-C.Williams pass deep left to 2-D.Moore for 46 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
OT 4:57 · Bears · 1st & 10 at GB 46 · gained 46 · +4.52 EP · +40.9% win probability
161 snaps placed · 13 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 174 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 161 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 168. Everything here paints once the weekly sync ingests the game — there is no live play-level feed in this product, so nothing on this page updates while a game is being played.
9 of 18 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 91 yards from the GB 5 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, GB 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.
174 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
174 plays
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
How the play was built
Nobody 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
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Play action, nobody in motion.
From outside the pocket.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, caught in traffic.
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: Packers at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malik Willis | 9/11 | 121 | 1 | 0 | 2 | +7.5 |
| Jordan Love | 8/13 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emanuel Wilson | 14 | 82 | 5.9 | 0 | +3.6 |
| Malik Willis | 10 | 44 | 4.4 | 0 | +2.6 |
| Josh Jacobs |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romeo Doubs | 5 | 6 | 84 | 1 | 25% | +8.2 |
| Luke Musgrave | 3 | 3 | 38 | 0 | 13% | +3.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quay Walker | 4 | 9 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Javon Bullard | 5 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Xavier McKinney | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Isaiah McDuffie |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 19/34 | 250 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +5.7 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift |
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_16_GB_CHI
The cards are drawn from the play-by-play sync, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Bears closed -1.5 and covered, winning by 6.
Total closed 45.5; the game landed 38 — under by 7.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 12 |
| 36 |
| 3.0 |
| 0 |
| −9.6 |
| Savion Williams | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | +0.1 |
| Jordan Love | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Jayden Reed | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | +0.2 |
| Matthew Golden | 2 | 4 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.6 |
| Chris Brooks | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.1 |
| Jayden Reed | 3 | 3 | 35 | 0 | 13% | +1.2 |
| Christian Watson | 2 | 6 | 17 | 0 | 25% | −4.7 |
| Josh Jacobs | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 8% | +0.8 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 8% | +1.3 |
| Matthew Golden | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| John FitzPatrick | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.6 |
| 1 |
| 5 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Nate Hobbs | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brenton Cox Jr. | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Edgerrin Cooper | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrington Valentine | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordon Riley | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Colby Wooden | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 |
| 58 |
| 4.5 |
| 0 |
| −0.9 |
| Kyle Monangai | 9 | 50 | 5.6 | 0 | −2.5 |
| Caleb Williams | 3 | 30 | 10.0 | 0 | +3.1 |
| DJ Moore | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | +0.7 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DJ Moore | 5 | 7 | 97 | 1 | 24% | +5.5 |
| Kyle Monangai | 3 | 4 | 43 | 0 | 14% | +2.1 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 2 | 5 | 33 | 0 | 17% | −0.3 |
| Colston Loveland | 3 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 17% | −0.6 |
| Jahdae Walker | 2 | 3 | 21 | 1 | 10% | +4.9 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 10% | −0.6 |
| D'Andre Swift | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 7% | −0.4 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T.J. Edwards | 5 | 5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Kevin Byard | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nahshon Wright | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaquan Brisker | 2 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Booker | 4 | 3 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Grady Jarrett | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 1 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |