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 11:23 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2025 Week 18 · Sun, Jan 4, 2026 · U.S. Bank Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2025 Week 18
It turned at Q1 4:10, 4th and 18 — 6.3 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Minnesota Vikings 16–3. Biggest swing: Q1 4:10, Packers +6.3% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q1 4:10 · 4th and 18
Unnamed on the sheet
Packers
(4:10) 19-D.Whelan punts 68 yards to end zone, Center-42-M.Orzech, Touchback.
6.3
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Throwing the ball
Vikings won this one — +0.01 expected points per dropback, against Packers at -0.71 expected points per dropback.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Vikings won this one — -0.04 expected points per snap, against Packers at -0.33 expected points per snap.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Vikings won this one — 47% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Packers at 37% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Vikingsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Vikings won this one — 7 chunk plays, against Packers at 4 chunk plays.
Vikingsthe 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 12.7 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 32 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Packers.
(4:10) 19-D.Whelan punts 68 yards to end zone, Center-42-M.Orzech, Touchback.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Will Reichard's 43-yard field goal with 10:32 left in the 1st put Minnesota Vikings ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 4 scores that followed.
Will Reichard43-yd field goal43-yard field goalholder R.Wright · snap A.DePaolaLead never changed again+30–35 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Packerscategory by categoryVikings
Vikings ahead 7–2 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, ±0.71 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 49 snaps at a 35% dropback rate against Vikings’s 64 at 53%. Red-zone trips: Packers 1, Vikings 4.
Vikings won the down-to-down efficiency fight: -0.04 expected points added per play vs -0.33.
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.
GB's pass rate over expected, −33.6 pts, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 18 — 9.0 points clear of the next team along.
49 snaps this game, floor 20 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.4 points. · −3.1σ from their own normal
GB's early-down pass rate, 27.0%, was the lowest of the 32 team-games charted in week 18 — 6.3 points clear of the next team along.
37 early downs this game, floor 15 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.9 points. · −2.0σ from their own normal
MIN's play-action rate, 44.1%, is past their previous high of 38.5% in week 1 — the highest of their 17 charted games through week 18.
34 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 17 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.3 points. · +2.2σ from their own normal
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 -38 pts to 20 pts
Over Expected room →Packers-33.6 ptsoff script — ran more than the situation asked · −29.2 vs their -4.3 pts, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (−3.11× that swing) · 49 snaps
Vikings-0.6 ptsright on their number · +0.8 vs their -1.4 pts, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (+0.16× that swing) · 64 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 20% to 83%
Tendencies room →Packers27.0%leaned — ran early · −23.3 vs their 50.3%, and they swing ±11.9 week to week (−1.96× that swing) · 37 early downs
Vikings49.1%inside their normal wobble · −5.5 vs their 54.6%, and they swing ±11.0 week to week (−0.50× that swing) · 53 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 5% to 47%
Tendencies room →Packers35.3%leaned — faked the run · +9.1 vs their 26.1%, and they swing ±7.9 week to week (+1.16× that swing) · 17 dropbacks
Vikings44.1%off script — faked the run · +18.1 vs their 26.0%, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (+2.19× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -41% to 110%
Fourth Down room →Packers0.0%leaned — took the kick · −39.7 vs their 39.7%, and they swing ±27.4 week to week (−1.45× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Vikings25.0%right on their number · −2.4 vs their 27.4%, and they swing ±26.3 week to week (−0.09× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 77%
Tendencies room →Packers26.5%right on their number · +2.3 vs their 24.2%, and they swing ±7.8 week to week (+0.29× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Vikings58.8%inside their normal wobble · +7.0 vs their 51.8%, and they swing ±9.0 week to week (+0.78× that swing) · 17 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -5% to 39%
Tendencies room →Packers20.6%inside their normal wobble · +4.3 vs their 16.3%, and they swing ±8.2 week to week (+0.53× that swing) · 34 dropbacks
Vikings29.4%leaned — got home · +10.0 vs their 19.5%, and they swing ±7.7 week to week (+1.30× that swing) · 17 dropbacks
GB's pass rate over expected was the night's one real departure: -33.6 pts, 29.2 points below their season mean of -4.3 pts and 3.1 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.
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 5 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 5
Minnesota Vikings
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · MIN
14/23, 182 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
7.6 expected points added · -0.7% completion over expected
Passing · MIN
7/8, 57 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
-5.4 expected points added · +8.5% completion over expected
Receiving · MIN
8/11 for 101 yds, 0 TD
37% of team targets · 4.4 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.
Jalen Nailor banked 3.2 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin JeffersonWR · Alpha Receiver | 18.4 | +0.7 | 76% | 85% | 37% | 35% | 1 car, 3 yd · 8/11, 101 yd |
| Jordan MasonRB · Committee Back | 9.4 | +1.9 | 40% | 38% | 0% | — | 14 car, 94 yd |
| J.J. McCarthyQB · Starter QB | 8.0 | −4.6 | 64% | — | 0% | — | 14/23, 182 yd · 2 car, 7 yd |
| Jalen NailorWR · Rotational Receiver | 7.9 | +3.2 | 75% | 82% | 10% | 18% | 3/3, 49 yd |
| C.J. HamRB | 7.7 | +2.3 | 31% | 21% | 3% | 0% | 1 car, 1 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 6 yd |
| Ty ChandlerRB · Committee Back | 6.4 | −8.5 | 43% | 41% | 13% | 0% | 10 car, 23 yd · 3/4, 11 yd |
| Chris BrooksRB · Committee Back | 6.1 | −0.4 | 45% | 53% | 0% | — | 13 car, 61 yd |
| Emanuel WilsonRB · Committee Back | 5.8 | −4.7 | 55% | 47% | 10% | 0% | 18 car, 44 yd · 1/1, 4 yd |
| Josh OliverTE · Rotational Receiver | 4.9 | +2.8 | 46% | 47% | 7% | 3% | 2/2, 29 yd |
| Clayton TuneQB · Starter QB | 3.7 | −0.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 6/11, 34 yd · 4 car, 23 yd |
| Jakobie Keeney-JamesWR · Featured Receiver | 3.5 | +0.9 | 94% | 94% | 20% | 60% | 2/2, 15 yd |
| Ben SimsTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.8 | −4.8 | 34% | 44% | 13% | 34% | 1/4, 18 yd |
| Zavier ScottRB | 2.7 | −1.6 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Ben YurosekTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.9 | +0.5 | 39% | 21% | 3% | 3% | 1/1, 9 yd |
| Matthew GoldenWR · Alpha Receiver | 1.8 | −1.6 | 100% | 100% | 30% | 36% | 1/3, 8 yd |
| Jordan AddisonWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | −5.0 | 93% | 100% | 10% | 18% | 1/3, 8 yd |
| Josh WhyleTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.4 | +0.1 | 73% | 59% | 10% | 0% | 1/1, 4 yd |
| Drake DabneyTE · Featured Receiver | 1.3 | −2.0 | 88% | 76% | 20% | 40% | 1/2, 3 yd |
| Max BrosmerQB | 0.3 | −3.0 | 36% | — | 0% | — | 7/8, 57 yd |
| Bo MeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.2 | 25% | 29% | 10% | 0% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Tai FeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 13% | 12% | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Jeshaun JonesWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
2 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 2 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 Vikings 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.
(:54) (Shotgun) 9-J.McCarthy pass deep right to 1-J.Nailor to GB 21 for 26 yards (38-J.Simpson).
Q2 0:54 · Vikings · 3rd & 8 at GB 47 · gained 26 · +2.30 EP · +8.2% win probability
142 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: 153 plays across 20 drives, personnel groupings on 142 snaps, the eleven on the field by name, manual charting on 148. 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.
5 of 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was MIN moving 84 yards from the MIN 9 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; MIN 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.
153 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
153 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Packers0
Vikings3Packers0Vikings6Packers0Vikings12Packers0Vikings13Packers0Vikings16Packers3Vikings16Win 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 Vikings, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clayton Tune | 6/11 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 4 | −13.2 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Brooks | 13 | 61 | 4.7 | 0 | −2.3 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 18 | 44 | 2.4 | 0 | −3.3 |
| Clayton Tune |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jakobie Keeney-James | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 20% | −0.1 |
| Matthew Golden | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 30% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jamon Johnson | 3 | 7 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaylin Simpson | 5 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Barryn Sorrell |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.J. McCarthy | 14/23 | 182 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +7.6 |
| Max Brosmer | 7/8 | 57 | 0 |
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_GB_MIN
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Vikings closed -12.5 and covered, winning by 13.
Total closed 37.5; the game landed 19 — under by 18.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 4 |
| 23 |
| 5.8 |
| 0 |
| +2.7 |
| −0.4 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 10% | −0.7 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 10% | −0.1 |
| Drake Dabney | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 20% | −0.8 |
| Bo Melton | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 10% | −1.4 |
| 5 |
| 3 |
| 1.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Johnathan Baldwin | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ty'Ron Hopper | 1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kitan Oladapo | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Shemar Bartholomew | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Javon Bullard | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Ford | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 |
| 2 |
| −5.4 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Mason | 14 | 94 | 6.7 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Ty Chandler | 10 | 23 | 2.3 | 0 | −4.5 |
| Zavier Scott | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 | −0.8 |
| J.J. McCarthy | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Justin Jefferson | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | +0.0 |
| C.J. Ham | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | +1.2 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justin Jefferson | 8 | 11 | 101 | 0 | 37% | +4.4 |
| Jalen Nailor | 3 | 3 | 49 | 0 | 10% | +3.5 |
| Josh Oliver | 2 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 7% | +2.3 |
| Ben Sims | 1 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 13% | +0.2 |
| Ty Chandler | 3 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 13% | −0.8 |
| Ben Yurosek | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 3% | +1.1 |
| Zavier Scott | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 3% | +1.0 |
| Jordan Addison | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 10% | −0.2 |
| C.J. Ham | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | +0.7 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Wilson | 3 | 6 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Blake Cashman | 3 | 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jay Ward | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dallas Turner | 4 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ivan Pace Jr. | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Murphy | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Theo Jackson | 3 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Allen | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Andrew Van Ginkel | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Jalen Redmond | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
