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 6:41 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2026 Week 4 · Sun, Oct 4, 2026 · Soldier Field
FinalThe verdict · 2026 Week 4
It turned at Q2 11:52, 1st and 10, on Minkah Fitzpatrick — 8.9 win-probability points to the Jets on one snap, the largest move of the game, and it still was not enough.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 23–12. Biggest swing: Q2 11:52, Jets +8.9% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 11:52 · 1st and 10
Minkah Fitzpatrick
Jets
(11:52) 17-T.Bagent pass deep middle intended for 84-C.Loveland INTERCEPTED by 29-M.Fitzpatrick at NYJ 39. 29-M.Fitzpatrick ran ob at CHI 34 for 27 yards (87-S.Roush).
8.9
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Explosive plays
Bears won this one — 11 chunk plays, against Jets at 2 chunk plays.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Bears won this one — 7 of 14 on third down, against Jets at 0 of 7 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Staying on schedule
Bears won this one — 55% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Jets at 41% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Giveaways
Jets owned this one and still lost it — no giveaways, against Bears at 2 giveaways.
Jetsthe 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 2.8 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 9 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Jets.
(11:52) 17-T.Bagent pass deep middle intended for 84-C.Loveland INTERCEPTED by 29-M.Fitzpatrick at NYJ 39. 29-M.Fitzpatrick ran ob at CHI 34 for 27 yards (87-S.Roush).
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Kyle Monangai's 1-yard rushing touchdown with 0:27 left in the 1st put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 7 scores that followed.
Isaiah Williams58-yd TD catch58-yard touchdown catchfrom Geno Smith · kick no good, wide right+612–238 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Jetscategory by categoryBears
Bears ahead 8–1 on categories, including the biggest gap of the duel — third-down rate.
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: Jets ran 32 snaps at a 56% dropback rate against Bears’s 86 at 42%. Red-zone trips: Jets 3, Bears 7.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.06 expected points added per play vs -0.14.
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 sack or hit rate, 44.4%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 4 — 13.7 points clear of the next team along.
18 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.5 points. · +2.2σ from their own normal
CHI's play-action rate, 47.2%, was the highest of the 32 team-games charted in week 4 — 9.1 points clear of the next team along.
36 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.7 points. · +1.4σ from their own normal
CHI's blitz rate sent turned over: 48.4% in week 3 against 27.8% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
18 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.0 points. · −1.3σ from their own normal
CHI's pass rate over expected turned over: +5.7 pts in week 3 against −8.0 pts here — they threw more than the situation asked then and ran more than the situation asked now, a turn of 2.1 of their own weekly swings across the two.
86 snaps this game, floor 20 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.6 points. · −1.2σ from their own normal
NYJ's early-down pass rate turned over: 66.7% in week 3 against 44.0% here — they passed early then and ran early now, a turn of 2.2 of their own weekly swings across the two.
25 early downs this game, floor 15 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.1 points. · −0.9σ 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 -19 pts to 17 pts
Over Expected room →Jets-8.4 ptsinside their normal wobble · −4.6 vs their -3.8 pts, and they swing ±5.8 week to week (−0.80× that swing) · 32 snaps
Bears-8.0 ptsleaned — ran more than the situation asked · −7.8 vs their -0.3 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (−1.18× that swing) · 86 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 27% to 78%
Tendencies room →Jets44.0%inside their normal wobble · −8.7 vs their 52.7%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (−0.86× that swing) · 25 early downs
Bears39.1%leaned — ran early · −12.9 vs their 52.0%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (−1.48× that swing) · 69 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 59%
Tendencies room →Jets27.8%inside their normal wobble · +6.4 vs their 21.4%, and they swing ±8.3 week to week (+0.77× that swing) · 18 dropbacks
Bears47.2%leaned — faked the run · +13.6 vs their 33.6%, and they swing ±9.7 week to week (+1.41× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -57% to 110%
Fourth Down room →Jets0.0%inside their normal wobble · −26.7 vs their 26.7%, and they swing ±32.7 week to week (−0.82× that swing) · 3 fourth-and-short calls
Bears60.0%right on their number · −0.7 vs their 60.7%, and they swing ±17.0 week to week (−0.04× that swing) · 5 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 13% to 66%
Tendencies room →Jets44.4%inside their normal wobble · +7.3 vs their 37.1%, and they swing ±8.8 week to week (+0.84× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Bears27.8%leaned — sat back · −12.8 vs their 40.5%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (−1.28× that swing) · 18 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -11% to 49%
Tendencies room →Jets5.6%leaned — stayed blocked · −9.2 vs their 14.7%, and they swing ±8.0 week to week (−1.14× that swing) · 36 dropbacks
Bears44.4%off script — got home · +25.7 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±11.5 week to week (+2.24× that swing) · 18 dropbacks
CHI's sack or hit rate was the night's one real departure: 44.4%, 25.7 points above their season mean of 18.8% and 2.2 times their own 11.5-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.
New York Jets
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 2 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 2
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
25/34, 268 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
7.9 expected points added · +8.0% completion over expected
Passing · NYJ
8/15, 119 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
-4.9 expected points added · -11.4% 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.
Isaiah Williams banked 10.4 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle MonangaiRB · Committee Back | 28.0 | −1.9 | 54% | — | 3% | 0% | 30 car, 146 yd, 2 TD · 1/1, 4 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Featured Receiver | 15.4 | +3.3 | 89% | — | 23% | 43% | 6/7, 94 yd |
| Isaiah WilliamsWR · Featured Receiver | 15.3 | +10.4 | 94% | — | 20% | 51% | 2/3, 73 yd, 1 TD |
| Colston LovelandTE · Alpha Receiver | 11.7 | −7.3 | 92% | — | 29% | 29% | 6/9, 57 yd |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Featured Receiver | 11.4 | −0.1 | 56% | — | 19% | 32% | 1 car, 11 yd · 4/6, 63 yd |
| Tyson BagentQB · Starter QB | 8.8 | −10.6 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 25/34, 268 yd, 1 INT · 4 car, 1 yd |
| Geno SmithQB · Starter QB | 8.8 | +4.5 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 8/15, 119 yd, 1 TD |
| Braelon AllenRB · Bell Cow Back | 8.7 | −0.3 | 94% | — | 13% | 0% | 14 car, 59 yd · 2/2, 8 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 7.4 | −8.8 | 35% | — | 6% | 0% | 15 car, 58 yd · 2/2, 16 yd |
| Garrett WilsonWR · Alpha Receiver | 5.7 | −0.1 | 100% | — | 27% | 33% | 3/4, 27 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB | 3.3 | −1.6 | 11% | — | 3% | 3% | 4 car, 16 yd · 1/1, 7 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.3 | +0.1 | 73% | — | 6% | 5% | 2/2, 13 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 2.6 | −0.4 | 51% | — | 6% | 0% | 2/2, 6 yd |
| Jelani WoodsTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.1 | +0.7 | 38% | — | 7% | 2% | 1/1, 11 yd |
| Sam RoushTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | +0.3 | 25% | — | 3% | 0% | 1/1, 8 yd |
| Zavion ThomasWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 10% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Andrew BeckRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Kene NwangwuRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Isaiah DavisRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Kenyon SadiqTE · Alpha Receiver | 0.0 | −4.7 | 69% | — | 27% | 12% | 0/4, 0 yd |
| Sterling ShepardWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.6 | 53% | — | 7% | 2% | 0/1, 0 yd |
3 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 4 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 Jets 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.
(11:52) 17-T.Bagent pass deep middle intended for 84-C.Loveland INTERCEPTED by 29-M.Fitzpatrick at NYJ 39. 29-M.Fitzpatrick ran ob at CHI 34 for 27 yards (87-S.Roush).
Q2 11:52 · Bears · 1st & 10 at CHI 43 · gained nothing · -5.84 EP · −12.7% win probability
154 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: 167 plays across 17 drives, manual charting on 162. 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 17 drives ended in points. The longest march was CHI moving 93 yards from the CHI 6 for a turnover on downs. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; CHI attacks right, NYJ 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.
167 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
167 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Jets0
Bears6Jets0Bears7How the play was built
Under center, two in the backfield, play action, a man in motion.
Five rushed the passer, one of them blitzing, seven in the box.
Thrown on the first read, it should have been intercepted, caught in traffic.
Jets3Bears7Jets3Bears10Jets3Bears13Jets6Bears13Jets6Bears19Jets6Bears20Jets6Bears23Jets12Bears23Win 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: Jets at Bears, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geno Smith | 8/15 | 119 | 1 | 0 | 3 | −4.9 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Braelon Allen | 14 | 59 | 4.2 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isaiah Williams | 2 | 3 | 73 | 1 | 20% | +5.4 |
| Garrett Wilson | 3 | 4 | 27 | 0 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minkah Fitzpatrick | 8 | 8 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Dane Belton | 6 | 8 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jamien Sherwood |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyson Bagent | 25/34 | 268 | 0 | 1 | 1 | +7.9 |
| 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_04_NYJ_CHI
The cards are drawn from the charted play-by-play, not live, and each one says so on its face.
Closing number vs result
Bears closed -3.5 and covered, winning by 11.
Total closed 43.5; the game landed 35 — under by 8.5.
Conditions and crew
| 27% |
| −1.2 |
| Jelani Woods | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 7% | +0.9 |
| Braelon Allen | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 13% | +0.1 |
| Kenyon Sadiq | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 27% | −2.9 |
| Sterling Shepard | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7% | −1.4 |
| 5 |
| 8 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Demario Davis | 5 | 5 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Harrison Phillips | 2 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joseph Ossai | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| David Bailey | 2 | 4 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Will McDonald IV | 2 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Azareye'h Thomas | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Darrell Jackson Jr. | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyle Monangai | 30 | 146 | 4.9 | 2 | +3.4 |
| D'Andre Swift | 15 | 58 | 3.9 | 0 | −7.4 |
| Roschon Johnson | 4 | 16 | 4.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | +0.7 |
| Tyson Bagent | 4 | 1 | 0.3 | 0 | −3.9 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rome Odunze | 6 | 7 | 94 | 0 | 23% | +6.7 |
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 6 | 63 | 0 | 19% | +3.3 |
| Colston Loveland | 6 | 9 | 57 | 0 | 29% | −4.1 |
| D'Andre Swift | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 6% | +0.2 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 6% | +1.7 |
| Sam Roush | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 3% | +0.6 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3% | +1.4 |
| Kalif Raymond | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6% | −0.4 |
| Kyle Monangai | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3% | −0.3 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyrique Stevenson | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Devin Bush | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Xavier Woods | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Booker | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dayo Odeyingbo | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Malik Muhammad | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sam Roush | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Neville Gallimore | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
