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 6:43 PM ET · 13 to play · 1 final
Game Center
Game Center
2026 Week 5 · Sun, Oct 11, 2026 · Lambeau Field
FinalThe verdict · 2026 Week 5
It turned at Q3 13:19, 3rd and 22, on Christian Watson — 16.4 win-probability points to the Packers on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Green Bay Packers 31–7 — never really in doubt late. Biggest swing: Q3 13:19, Packers +16.4% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q3 13:19 · 3rd and 22
Christian Watson
Packers
(13:19) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass deep middle to 9-C.Watson for 53 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
16.4
win-probability points on one snap
The largest move of the game. The two below are drawn against it.
What separated them
Giveaways
Packers won this one — no giveaways, against Bears at 5 giveaways.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Packers won this one — +0.49 expected points per dropback, against Bears at -0.48 expected points per dropback.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Packers won this one — +0.26 expected points per snap, against Bears at -0.34 expected points per snap.
Packersthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Explosive plays
Packers won this one — 8 chunk plays, against Bears at 5 chunk plays.
Packersthe 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 6.6 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 16 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Packers.
(13:19) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass deep middle to 9-C.Watson for 53 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
How the points landed
Christian Watson's 42-yard touchdown catch with 5:57 left in the 1st put Green Bay Packers ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 5 scores that followed.
Christian Watson42-yd TD catch42-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan LoveLead never changed again+70–7Christian Watson53-yd TD catch53-yard touchdown catchfrom Jordan Love · kick no good, wide left+67–206 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryPackers
Packers ahead 9–0 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, ±0.49 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: Bears ran 68 snaps at a 69% dropback rate against Packers’s 58 at 60%. Red-zone trips: Bears 3, Packers 5.
Packers won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.26 expected points added per play vs -0.34.
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 play-action rate, 40.0%, was the highest of the 30 team-games charted in week 5 — 0.5 points clear of the next team along.
35 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 12.0 points. · +1.7σ from their own normal
CHI's early-down pass rate, 67.3%, is past their previous high of 52.9% in week 2 — the highest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
49 early downs this game, floor 15 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 8.7 points. · +1.8σ from their own normal
GB's blitz rate sent, 14.9%, is past their previous low of 27.1% in week 2 — the lowest of their 5 charted games through week 5.
47 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 13.4 points. · −1.5σ from their own normal
CHI's play-action rate turned over: 47.2% in week 4 against 23.4% here — they faked the run then and dropped back clean now, a turn of 2.5 of their own weekly swings across the two.
47 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 9.7 points. · −1.1σ from their own normal
CHI's sack or hit rate turned over: 44.4% in week 4 against 14.3% here — they got home then and stayed blocked now, a turn of 2.6 of their own weekly swings across the two.
35 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 7 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 11.5 points. · −0.4σ 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 -17 pts to 18 pts
Over Expected room →Bears2.0 ptsright on their number · +2.3 vs their -0.3 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+0.34× that swing) · 68 snaps
Packers5.9 ptsinside their normal wobble · +2.8 vs their 3.1 pts, and they swing ±5.6 week to week (+0.50× that swing) · 57 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 29% to 87%
Tendencies room →Bears67.3%leaned — passed early · +15.4 vs their 52.0%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (+1.77× that swing) · 49 early downs
Packers56.8%right on their number · −4.1 vs their 60.9%, and they swing ±10.1 week to week (−0.41× that swing) · 44 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -12% to 60%
Tendencies room →Bears23.4%leaned — dropped back clean · −10.2 vs their 33.6%, and they swing ±9.7 week to week (−1.06× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
Packers40.0%leaned — faked the run · +20.2 vs their 19.8%, and they swing ±12.0 week to week (+1.68× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -13% to 106%
Fourth Down room →Bears75.0%inside their normal wobble · +14.3 vs their 60.7%, and they swing ±17.0 week to week (+0.84× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
Packers25.0%inside their normal wobble · −19.2 vs their 44.2%, and they swing ±22.3 week to week (−0.86× that swing) · 4 fourth-and-short calls
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 1% to 70%
Tendencies room →Bears34.3%inside their normal wobble · −6.3 vs their 40.5%, and they swing ±10.0 week to week (−0.63× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
Packers14.9%leaned — sat back · −20.7 vs their 35.6%, and they swing ±13.4 week to week (−1.54× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -11% to 48%
Tendencies room →Bears14.3%right on their number · −4.5 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±11.5 week to week (−0.39× that swing) · 35 dropbacks
Packers19.1%inside their normal wobble · +4.6 vs their 14.6%, and they swing ±5.9 week to week (+0.78× that swing) · 47 dropbacks
CHI's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 67.3%, 15.4 points above their season mean of 52.0% and 1.8 times their own 8.7-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.
Chicago Bears
48 dressed · 6 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 6
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Green Bay Packers
48 dressed · 4 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 4
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · GB
25/31, 367 yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
16.9 expected points added · +16.2% completion over expected
Passing · CHI
11/19, 108 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT
-6.4 expected points added · -4.5% completion over expected
Receiving · GB
6/8 for 143 yds, 2 TD
26% of team targets · 10.3 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.
Christian Watson banked 15.3 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian WatsonWR · Alpha Receiver | 32.3 | +15.3 | 80% | — | 26% | 56% | 6/8, 143 yd, 2 TD |
| Jordan LoveQB · Starter QB | 25.3 | +7.5 | 97% | — | 0% | — | 25/31, 367 yd, 2 TD · 1 car, 6 yd |
| Matthew GoldenWR · Featured Receiver | 20.3 | +4.4 | 77% | — | 23% | 34% | 6/7, 123 yd |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 17.3 | +0.1 | 58% | — | 13% | 0% | 9 car, 43 yd, 1 TD · 4/5, 30 yd |
| MarShawn LloydRB · Committee Back | 16.7 | +5.5 | 44% | — | 6% | 3% | 10 car, 31 yd, 2 TD · 1/2, 6 yd |
| Tucker KraftTE · Rotational Receiver | 11.6 | +3.5 | 77% | — | 16% | 8% | 1 car, 2 yd · 5/5, 64 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB · Receiving Back | 9.0 | −4.3 | 39% | — | 18% | 5% | 5 car, 6 yd · 5/7, 34 yd |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Rotational Receiver | 8.9 | −7.7 | 77% | — | 15% | 23% | 4 car, 2 yd · 4/6, 47 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Featured Receiver | 5.0 | −13.0 | 99% | — | 23% | 30% | 3/9, 40 yd |
| Bo MeltonWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.0 | −1.1 | 49% | — | 13% | 3% | 3/4, 20 yd |
| Pierre StrongRB · Receiving Back | 4.8 | −3.0 | 41% | — | 13% | 0% | 5 car, 7 yd · 3/4, 11 yd |
| Colston LovelandTE · Rotational Receiver | 3.9 | −4.7 | 80% | — | 13% | 13% | 2/5, 19 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.4 | −3.1 | 68% | — | 10% | 14% | 1 car, -2 yd · 3/4, 6 yd |
| Zavion ThomasWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.2 | +1.0 | 22% | — | 3% | 2% | 1 car, 11 yd · 1/1, 11 yd |
| Kaleb JohnsonRB | 2.6 | −0.7 | 15% | — | 0% | — | 7 car, 26 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.8 | −0.5 | 42% | — | 5% | 2% | 1/2, 8 yd |
| Tyson BagentQB · Starter QB | 1.2 | −10.1 | 67% | — | 0% | — | 12/21, 87 yd, 2 INT · 3 car, 17 yd |
| Skyy MooreWR · Rotational Receiver | 1.0 | −1.4 | 18% | — | 3% | 0% | 1/1, 0 yd |
| Case KeenumQB | 0.7 | −8.6 | 33% | — | 0% | — | 11/19, 108 yd, 1 INT · 1 car, 4 yd |
| Sam RoushTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 5 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Zavier ScottRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
| Jahdae WalkerWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −1.5 | — | — | — | — | 6 snaps — too few to rate. |
| J. Michael SturdivantWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 13% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Tyrod TaylorQB | -0.2 | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 3 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 Packers attack right, the Bears 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.
(13:19) (Shotgun) 10-J.Love pass deep middle to 9-C.Watson for 53 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
Q3 13:19 · Packers · 3rd & 22 at GB 47 · gained 53 · +5.90 EP · +12.4% win probability
158 snaps placed · 12 without a recorded yard line, left off the map · 4 marked moments — the largest win-probability swings, one per drive.
Post-game film: 170 plays across 25 drives, manual charting on 165. 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.
6 of 25 drives ended in points. The longest march was GB moving 91 yards from the GB 9 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; GB attacks right, CHI 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.
170 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
170 plays
Bar length is win probability the play moved
Bears0
Packers6Bears0Packers7Bears0Packers13Bears0Packers14Bears6Packers14Bears7Packers14How the play was built
Shotgun, a man in motion.
Four rushed the passer, five in the box.
Thrown out of the scramble drill, caught in traffic.
Bears7Packers20Bears7Packers23Bears7Packers29Bears7Packers31Win 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: Bears at Packers, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case Keenum | 11/19 | 108 | 0 | 1 | 2 | −6.4 |
| Tyson Bagent | 12/21 | 87 | 0 | 2 | 2 | −10.3 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Andre Swift | 9 | 43 | 4.8 | 1 | +4.3 |
| Tyson Bagent | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 0 | +1.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 6 | 47 | 0 | 15% | −1.7 |
| Rome Odunze | 3 | 9 | 40 | 0 | 23% |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devin Bush | 3 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dillon Thieneman | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Austin Booker |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | 25/31 | 367 | 2 | 0 | 2 | +16.9 |
| 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_05_CHI_GB
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 -1.5 and lost outright — an upset against the closing number.
Total closed 46.5; the game landed 38 — under by 8.5.
Conditions and crew
Division game — familiarity tightens these matchups; closing numbers tend to be sharper.
| Zavion Thomas | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | +0.8 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 6 | 1.2 | 0 | −3.6 |
| Case Keenum | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | −2.3 |
| Kalif Raymond | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | −0.8 |
| −7.4 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 7 | 34 | 0 | 18% | +0.6 |
| D'Andre Swift | 4 | 5 | 30 | 0 | 13% | +0.5 |
| Colston Loveland | 2 | 5 | 19 | 0 | 13% | −4.1 |
| Zavion Thomas | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 3% | +0.7 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 5% | +0.9 |
| Kalif Raymond | 3 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 10% | −1.5 |
| Jahdae Walker | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −2.7 |
| 4 |
| 1 |
| 2.0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Cam Lewis | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| James Lynch | 1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| D'Marco Jackson | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malik Muhammad | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dayo Odeyingbo | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 10 | 31 | 3.1 | 2 | +0.3 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 | −2.6 |
| Pierre Strong | 5 | 7 | 1.4 | 0 | −0.3 |
| Jordan Love | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | +0.3 |
| Tucker Kraft | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | +0.5 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 | −3.0 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | 6 | 8 | 143 | 2 | 26% | +10.3 |
| Matthew Golden | 6 | 7 | 123 | 0 | 23% | +8.6 |
| Tucker Kraft | 5 | 5 | 64 | 0 | 16% | +3.1 |
| Bo Melton | 3 | 4 | 20 | 0 | 13% | −1.4 |
| Pierre Strong | 3 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 13% | −1.4 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6% | −0.3 |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3% | −0.5 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evan Williams | 7 | 5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zaire Franklin | 6 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Javon Bullard | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 3 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keisean Nixon | 3 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kamal Hadden | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brenton Cox Jr. | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dani Dennis-Sutton | 3 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Devonte Wyatt | 3 | 0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lukas Van Ness | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
