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.
live · 12s tick · as of 12:20 PM ET · 1 h ago · 7 live · 5 to play · 2 final
Game Center
Game Center
2026 Week 3 · Sun, Sep 27, 2026 · Lucas Oil Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2026 Week 3
It turned at Q4 0:21, 4th and 1, on Spencer Shrader — 27.4 win-probability points to the Colts on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Indianapolis Colts 19–17 — decided on the final possessions. Biggest swing: Q4 0:21, Colts +27.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q4 0:21 · 4th and 1
Spencer Shrader
Colts
(:21) 3-S.Shrader 53 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-L.Rhodes, Holder-8-R.Sanchez.
27.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Texans owned this one and still lost it — no giveaways, against Colts at 3 giveaways.
Texansthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Red zone
Texans owned this one and still lost it — 2 touchdowns on 3 trips, against Colts at 1 touchdown on 3 trips.
Texansthe gap went the other way from the scoreboard
Explosive plays
Colts won this one — 5 chunk plays, against Texans at 2 chunk plays.
Coltsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Colts won this one — 7 of 15 on third down, against Texans at 4 of 11 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 9.5 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 17 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Colts.
(:21) 3-S.Shrader 53 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-L.Rhodes, Holder-8-R.Sanchez.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Spencer Shrader's 53-yard field goal with 0:21 left in the 4th put Indianapolis Colts ahead for good. It was the last score of the day.
Spencer Shrader53-yd field goal53-yard field goalholder R.Sanchez · snap L.RhodesLead never changed again+317–198 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Texanscategory by categoryColts
Texans ahead 5–4 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — turnovers.
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: Texans ran 51 snaps at a 61% dropback rate against Colts’s 71 at 58%. Red-zone trips: Texans 3, Colts 3.
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.
HOU's pass rate over expected turned over: +6.1 pts in week 2 against −7.0 pts here — they threw more than the situation asked then and ran more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
51 snaps this game, floor 20 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 5.3 points. · −1.1σ from their own normal
IND's pass rate over expected turned over: −10.8 pts in week 2 against +0.8 pts here — they ran more than the situation asked then and threw more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
71 snaps this game, floor 20 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 4.6 points. · +0.8σ from their own normal
HOU's early-down pass rate turned over: 76.4% in week 2 against 56.4% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
39 early downs this game, floor 15 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.1 points. · −0.5σ 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 -15 pts to 13 pts
Over Expected room →Texans-7.0 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −6.1 vs their -0.9 pts, and they swing ±5.3 week to week (−1.15× that swing) · 51 snaps
Colts0.8 ptsinside their normal wobble · +3.8 vs their -3.0 pts, and they swing ±4.6 week to week (+0.83× that swing) · 71 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 39% to 81%
Tendencies room →Texans56.4%right on their number · −3.7 vs their 60.1%, and they swing ±8.1 week to week (−0.46× that swing) · 39 early downs
Colts55.6%right on their number · −0.3 vs their 55.9%, and they swing ±6.2 week to week (−0.06× that swing) · 54 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 2% to 57%
Tendencies room →Texans22.6%right on their number · +0.7 vs their 21.9%, and they swing ±7.1 week to week (+0.10× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
Colts34.1%right on their number · +4.6 vs their 29.5%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (+0.43× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -41% to 93%
Fourth Down room →Texans25.0%right on their number · 0.0 vs their 25.0%, and they swing ±26.0 week to week (0.00× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Colts66.7%leaned — went for it · +22.7 vs their 44.0%, and they swing ±17.9 week to week (+1.27× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 51%
Tendencies room →Texans31.7%inside their normal wobble · +8.9 vs their 22.8%, and they swing ±9.3 week to week (+0.96× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Colts16.1%inside their normal wobble · −5.6 vs their 21.8%, and they swing ±8.9 week to week (−0.64× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -8% to 34%
Tendencies room →Texans17.1%right on their number · +1.2 vs their 15.9%, and they swing ±6.8 week to week (+0.18× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Colts19.4%inside their normal wobble · +7.3 vs their 12.1%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (+0.91× that swing) · 31 dropbacks
IND's fourth-and-short go rate was the night's one real departure: 66.7%, 22.7 points above their season mean of 44.0% and 1.3 times their own 17.9-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.
Houston Texans
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Indianapolis Colts
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · IND
24/36, 235 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT
-6.9 expected points added · -0.8% completion over expected
Passing · HOU
16/27, 167 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
-3.1 expected points added · +0.2% 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.
Woody Marks banked 2.3 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keenan AllenWR · Alpha Receiver | 18.3 | +2.2 | 73% | — | 26% | 26% | 6/9, 63 yd, 1 TD |
| Tyler WarrenTE · Alpha Receiver | 14.7 | −0.4 | 94% | — | 29% | 10% | 1 car, 2 yd · 9/10, 55 yd |
| Josh DownsWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.7 | −9.1 | 68% | — | 31% | 62% | 5/11, 77 yd |
| C.J. StroudQB · Starter QB | 11.7 | −2.1 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 16/27, 167 yd, 1 TD · 2 car, 10 yd |
| Jonathan TaylorRB · Bell Cow Back | 9.2 | −7.0 | 85% | — | 9% | 0% | 23 car, 68 yd · 2/3, 4 yd |
| Woody MarksRB | 9.1 | +2.3 | 37% | — | 4% | 0% | 5 car, 15 yd, 1 TD · 1/1, 6 yd |
| Foster MoreauTE · Rotational Receiver | 8.7 | −1.1 | 57% | — | 16% | 5% | 2/4, 7 yd, 1 TD |
| Xavier HutchinsonWR · Featured Receiver | 8.5 | −1.7 | 54% | — | 24% | 44% | 2 car, 4 yd · 3/6, 51 yd |
| Daniel JonesQB · Starter QB | 7.9 | −10.0 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 24/36, 235 yd, 1 TD, 1 INT · 3 car, 5 yd |
| David MontgomeryRB · Committee Back | 6.8 | −1.2 | 63% | — | 8% | 4% | 11 car, 33 yd · 2/2, 15 yd |
| Dalton SchultzTE · Rotational Receiver | 6.0 | +1.0 | 54% | — | 12% | 10% | 3/3, 30 yd |
| Jaylin NoelWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.5 | +0.9 | 26% | — | 8% | 6% | 1 car, 8 yd · 2/2, 17 yd |
| Kayshon BoutteWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.1 | +0.4 | 69% | — | 8% | 5% | 2/2, 21 yd |
| Jared WayneWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.0 | −3.5 | 61% | — | 16% | 25% | 1/4, 20 yd |
| Laquon TreadwellWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.0 | +1.0 | 79% | — | 3% | 7% | 1/1, 20 yd |
| Mo Alie-CoxTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | +1.2 | 38% | — | 3% | 0% | 1/1, 16 yd |
| Seth McGowanRB | 1.4 | −1.3 | 15% | — | 0% | — | 4 car, 14 yd |
| Lewis BondWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | 17% | — | 4% | 4% | 0/1, 0 yd |
| Anthony GouldWR | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
1 player 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 Colts attack right, the Texans 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.
(:21) 3-S.Shrader 53 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-46-L.Rhodes, Holder-8-R.Sanchez.
Q4 0:21 · Colts · 4th & 1 at HOU 36 · gained nothing · +1.27 EP · +35.9% win probability
152 snaps placed · 14 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 20 drives, manual charting on 161. 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 20 drives ended in points. The longest march was HOU moving 71 yards from the HOU 23 for a field goal. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; IND attacks right, HOU attacks left. Hatching marks a trip inside the twenty.
No personnel grouping was recorded for this game, so the film shows the play detail without a groupings breakdown rather than a column of dashes.
166 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
166 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Under center, play action, a man in motion.
Four rushed the passer, five in the box.
How the play was built
Shotgun, a man in motion.
Five rushed the passer, one of them blitzing, six in the box.
Thrown on the first read.
Texans0
Colts3Texans0Colts9Texans0Colts10Texans6Colts10Texans7Colts10Texans7Colts13Texans7Colts16Texans10Colts16How the play was built
Shotgun, nobody in motion.
Five rushed the passer, one of them blitzing, seven in the box.
How the play was built
Under center, two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Five rushed the passer, one of them blitzing, eight in the box.
Thrown on the first read.
Texans16Colts16Texans17Colts16How the play was built
Shotgun, nobody in motion.
Six rushed the passer, two of them blitzing, six in the box.
Thrown on the second read.
How the play was built
Pistol, nobody in motion.
Six in the box.
Texans17Colts19How the play was built
Shotgun, nobody in motion.
Three rushed the passer, three in the box.
Thrown on the first read.
How the play was built
Shotgun, nobody in motion.
Four rushed the passer, four in the box.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, the ball was not catchable.
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: Texans at Colts, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C.J. Stroud | 16/27 | 167 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −3.1 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Montgomery | 11 | 33 | 3.0 | 0 | −5.8 |
| Woody Marks | 5 | 15 | 3.0 | 1 | +1.4 |
| C.J. Stroud |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xavier Hutchinson | 3 | 6 | 51 | 0 | 24% | +0.4 |
| Dalton Schultz | 3 | 3 | 30 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azeez Al-Shaair | 2 | 9 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Reed Blankenship | 5 | 4 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Kamari Lassiter |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Jones | 24/36 | 235 | 1 | 1 | 4 | −6.9 |
| 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/2026_03_HOU_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
Texans closed -1.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 41.5; the game landed 36 — under by 5.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| 2 |
| 10 |
| 5.0 |
| 0 |
| +2.2 |
| Jaylin Noel | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | +1.1 |
| Xavier Hutchinson | 2 | 4 | 2.0 | 0 | −0.5 |
| 12% |
| −1.0 |
| Kayshon Boutte | 2 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 8% | +1.5 |
| Jared Wayne | 1 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 16% | +0.1 |
| Jaylin Noel | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 8% | +0.3 |
| David Montgomery | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 8% | +1.5 |
| Foster Moreau | 2 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 16% | −0.6 |
| Woody Marks | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 4% | −0.0 |
| Lewis Bond | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4% | −0.8 |
| 5 |
| 3 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Calen Bullock | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jake Hansen | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Will Anderson Jr. | 5 | 2 | 2.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Tommy Togiai | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Danielle Hunter | 2 | 4 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 |
| Sheldon Rankins | 3 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Logan Hall | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 23 | 68 | 3.0 | 0 | −4.0 |
| Seth McGowan | 4 | 14 | 3.5 | 0 | −0.2 |
| Daniel Jones | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 0 | +2.6 |
| Tyler Warren | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | +0.4 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Downs | 5 | 11 | 77 | 0 | 31% | +1.5 |
| Keenan Allen | 6 | 9 | 63 | 1 | 26% | +5.3 |
| Tyler Warren | 9 | 10 | 55 | 0 | 29% | +1.9 |
| Laquon Treadwell | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 3% | +1.5 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 3% | +1.0 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 9% | −1.0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charvarius Ward | 6 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Akeem Davis-Gaither | 3 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeForest Buckner | 2 | 5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Sauce Gardner | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Hunter Wohler | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Adetomiwa Adebawore | 1 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Ajiake | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Walley | 2 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| A.J. Haulcy | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tim Smith | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
