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.
This page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
This page's interactive half has not started on this device. Nothing was read, and nothing was invented in its place. Reload the page.
polling · 300s tick · as of 6:29 PM ET · 15 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 18 · Sun, Jan 4, 2026 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 18
It turned at Q4 0:02, 3rd and 8, on Jake Bates — 23.4 win-probability points to the Lions on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Detroit Lions 19–16 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:02, Lions +23.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:02 · 3rd and 8
Jake Bates
Lions
(:02) 39-J.Bates 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-49-H.Hatten, Holder-3-J.Fox.
23.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Staying on schedule
Lions won this one — 54% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Bears at 44% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Red zone
Bears owned this one and still lost it — 1 touchdown on 2 trips, against Lions at 1 touchdown on 4 trips.
Bearsthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Giveaways
Lions won this one — 1 giveaway, against Bears at 2 giveaways.
Lionsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Lions won this one — +0.21 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.05 expected points per dropback.
Lionsthe 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 3.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 9 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Lions.
(:02) 39-J.Bates 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-49-H.Hatten, Holder-3-J.Fox.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Jake Bates's 42-yard field goal with 0:02 left in the 4th put Detroit Lions ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Jahdae Walker25-yd TD catch25-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb Williams · two-point good+816–8
Colston Loveland1-yd TD catch1-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb Williams · two-point good+816–16
Jake Bates42-yd field goal42-yard field goalholder J.Fox · snap H.HattenLead never changed again+319–167 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Lionscategory by categoryBears
Lions ahead 7–1 on categories, but the biggest gap belongs to Bears, in sacks taken.
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: Lions ran 72 snaps at a 63% dropback rate against Bears’s 54 at 67%. Red-zone trips: Lions 4, Bears 2.
Lions won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.14 expected points added per play vs -0.02.
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.
DET's pass rate over expected turned over: −16.4 pts in week 17 against +5.1 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.9 of their own weekly swings across the two.
72 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 7.5 points. · +1.3σ from their own normal
DET's sack or hit rate turned over: 36.0% in week 17 against 11.1% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.8 of their own weekly swings across the two.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.7 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 14 pts
Over Expected room →Lions5.1 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +9.9 vs their -4.8 pts, and they swing ±7.5 week to week (+1.32× that swing) · 72 snaps
Bears-0.5 ptsinside their normal wobble · +3.3 vs their -3.9 pts, and they swing ±4.1 week to week (+0.80× that swing) · 52 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 24% to 84%
Tendencies room →Lions57.6%right on their number · +4.0 vs their 53.7%, and they swing ±11.8 week to week (+0.33× that swing) · 59 early downs
Bears64.1%leaned — passed early · +9.6 vs their 54.5%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+1.02× that swing) · 39 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 56%
Tendencies room →Lions28.9%right on their number · +3.0 vs their 25.9%, and they swing ±10.6 week to week (+0.28× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
Bears25.0%inside their normal wobble · −6.6 vs their 31.6%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−0.70× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 120%
Fourth Down room →Lions—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 65.6%.
Bears50.0%right on their number · +5.2 vs their 44.8%, and they swing ±19.2 week to week (+0.27× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 61%
Tendencies room →Lions33.3%right on their number · +1.5 vs their 31.8%, and they swing ±11.4 week to week (+0.13× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Bears26.7%right on their number · −3.2 vs their 29.9%, and they swing ±11.2 week to week (−0.28× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 39%
Tendencies room →Lions11.1%inside their normal wobble · −5.1 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−0.59× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Bears15.6%right on their number · +2.5 vs their 13.0%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+0.32× that swing) · 45 dropbacks
DET's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: 5.1 pts, 9.9 points above their season mean of -4.8 pts and 1.3 times their own 7.5-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.
Detroit Lions
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 4 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 4
Who moved the needle
Passing · DET
27/42, 331 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
12.3 expected points added · +5.4% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
20/33, 212 yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
-1.4 expected points added · +0.1% completion over expected
Receiving · DET
11/15 for 139 yds, 0 TD
42% of team targets · 6.0 expected points added
Receiving · CHI
10/13 for 91 yds, 1 TD
45% of team targets · 2.5 expected points added
What each man’s workload was worth, against what he actually banked. Final. Usage and expected points land with the weekly sync, not live.
Jahdae Walker banked 5.1 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colston LovelandTE · Alpha Receiver | 25.1 | +0.2 | 91% | 86% | 45% | 36% | 10/13, 91 yd, 1 TD |
| Amon-Ra St. BrownWR · Alpha Receiver | 24.9 | −2.5 | 95% | 96% | 42% | 58% | 11/15, 139 yd |
| Jahmyr GibbsRB · Bell Cow Back | 20.3 | +1.0 | 71% | 64% | 14% | 0% | 19 car, 80 yd · 3/5, 33 yd, 1 TD |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 16.6 | −1.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 20/33, 212 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT · 1 car, 1 yd |
| Jared GoffQB · Starter QB | 15.2 | −4.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 27/42, 331 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT |
| Jameson WilliamsWR · Featured Receiver | 13.4 | +0.4 | 95% | 96% | 22% | 14% | 6/8, 74 yd |
| Jahdae WalkerWR · Rotational Receiver | 11.6 | +5.1 | 36% | 42% | 10% | 18% | 2/3, 36 yd, 1 TD |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.2 | +3.1 | 19% | 24% | 8% | 5% | 3/3, 52 yd |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.5 | +1.0 | 62% | 67% | 14% | 5% | 1 car, 10 yd · 3/4, 35 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB | 6.5 | +0.4 | 42% | 44% | 3% | 1% | 8 car, 42 yd · 1/1, 13 yd |
| Kyle MonangaiRB | 5.9 | +0.5 | 42% | 44% | 3% | 3% | 6 car, 14 yd · 1/1, 15 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 5.8 | −3.3 | 58% | 53% | 7% | 5% | 10 car, 40 yd · 1/2, 8 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 5.6 | +0.4 | 89% | 83% | 10% | 0% | 2/3, 16 yd |
| Isaac TeSlaaWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.8 | +0.8 | 60% | 60% | 3% | 6% | 1/1, 18 yd |
| Anthony FirkserTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.2 | −2.6 | 70% | 69% | 8% | 0% | 2/3, 2 yd |
| DJ MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | −4.2 | 85% | 81% | 10% | 18% | 1/3, 11 yd |
| Travis HomerRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Durham SmytheTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 22% | 14% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Nikola KalinicTE | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Devin DuvernayWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Sione VakiRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Tom KennedyWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 snap — too few to rate. |
5 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 6 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 Bears attack right, the Lions 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.
(:02) 39-J.Bates 42 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-49-H.Hatten, Holder-3-J.Fox.
Q4 0:02 · Lions · 3rd & 8 at CHI 24 · gained nothing · +0.55 EP · +24.6% win probability
153 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: 166 plays across 18 drives, personnel groupings on 153 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 161. 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.
7 of 18 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 88 yards from the CHI 12 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, DET 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.
166 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
166 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Lions3
Bears0Lions6Bears0Lions12Bears0Lions13Bears0Lions16Bears0Lions16Bears6Lions16Bears8Lions16Bears14How the play was built
Two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, from outside the pocket, caught in traffic.
Lions16Bears16How the play was built
Nobody in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
How the play was built
A man in motion.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted, caught in traffic.
How the play was built
Play action, a man in motion.
Thrown on the first read.
Lions19Bears16Win 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: Lions at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jared Goff | 27/42 | 331 | 1 | 1 | 2 | +12.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 19 | 80 | 4.2 | 0 | −0.4 |
| David Montgomery | 8 | 42 | 5.3 | 0 | +1.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 11 | 15 | 139 | 0 | 42% | +6.0 |
| Jameson Williams | 6 | 8 | 74 | 0 | 22% | +5.6 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jack Campbell | 4 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Daniel Thomas | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aidan Hutchinson | 4 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malcolm Rodriguez |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 20/33 | 212 | 2 | 1 | 1 | −1.4 |
| 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_18_DET_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 -3.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 51.5; the game landed 35 — under by 16.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Kalif Raymond | 3 | 3 | 52 | 0 | 8% | +3.7 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 3 | 5 | 33 | 1 | 14% | +2.8 |
| Isaac TeSlaa | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 3% | +1.1 |
| David Montgomery | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 3% | +0.8 |
| Anthony Firkser | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 8% | −1.6 |
| 4 |
| 0 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Avonte Maddox | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Rock Ya-Sin | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Derrick Barnes | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tyler Lacy | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mekhi Wingo | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalen Mills | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 |
| 40 |
| 4.0 |
| 0 |
| +1.0 |
| Kyle Monangai | 6 | 14 | 2.3 | 0 | −1.0 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | +1.0 |
| Caleb Williams | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colston Loveland | 10 | 13 | 91 | 1 | 45% | +2.5 |
| Jahdae Walker | 2 | 3 | 36 | 1 | 10% | +2.6 |
| Luther Burden III | 3 | 4 | 35 | 0 | 14% | +2.8 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 10% | +2.1 |
| Kyle Monangai | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 3% | −0.1 |
| DJ Moore | 1 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 10% | −4.0 |
| D'Andre Swift | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 7% | −1.1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaquan Brisker | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kevin Byard | 2 | 6 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 7 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nahshon Wright | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| C.J. Gardner-Johnson | 5 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Billings | 3 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
