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
2026 Week 6 · Sun, Oct 18, 2026 · Mercedes-Benz Stadium
FinalThe verdict · 2026 Week 6
It turned at Q2 1:52, 4th and 1 — 10.7 win-probability points to the Bears on one snap, the largest move of the game.
The snaps that bent it
Chicago Bears 31–23. Biggest swing: Q2 1:52, Bears +10.7% win probability on one snap.
The biggest swing of the game · Q2 1:52 · 4th and 1
Unnamed on the sheet
Bears
(1:52) 19-T.Taylor punts 50 yards to ATL 10, Center-46-S.Daly. 17-Z.Branch MUFFS catch, RECOVERED by CHI-39-J.Blackwell at ATL 10.
10.7
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
Bears won this one — 50% of snaps stayed on schedule, against Falcons at 33% of snaps stayed on schedule.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Third down
Bears won this one — 9 of 17 on third down, against Falcons at 3 of 12 on third down.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Throwing the ball
Bears won this one — +0.25 expected points per dropback, against Falcons at -0.26 expected points per dropback.
Bearsthe gap went the way the scoreboard did
Every snap
Bears won this one — +0.04 expected points per snap, against Falcons at -0.26 expected points per snap.
Bearsthe 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 4.5 win-probability points apart on the average play, and 15 apart at the widest — with the model the more convinced about Falcons.
(1:52) 19-T.Taylor punts 50 yards to ATL 10, Center-46-S.Daly. 17-Z.Branch MUFFS catch, RECOVERED by CHI-39-J.Blackwell at ATL 10.
The modelled figures are the league play-by-play model's, not ours.
Win probability — this number changed
The win probability on this page changed: it was ESPN's model's and it is now the league play-by-play model's. The two models are fitted differently and do not produce the same number on the same play.
How the points landed
Colston Loveland's 14-yard touchdown catch with 8:25 left in the 1st put Chicago Bears ahead for good. The lead never changed over the 7 scores that followed.
Colston Loveland14-yd TD catch14-yard touchdown catchfrom Caleb WilliamsLead never changed again+77–0
Kyle Pitts10-yd TD catch10-yard touchdown catchfrom Michael Penix Jr. · two-point good+831–158 scores · bar length is the lead after each one
Down-to-down truth
Bearscategory by categoryFalcons
Bears ahead 7–1 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: Bears ran 72 snaps at a 57% dropback rate against Falcons’s 52 at 79%. Red-zone trips: Bears 5, Falcons 3.
Bears won the down-to-down efficiency fight: 0.04 expected points added per play vs -0.26.
Derived from the play-by-play, no model
10 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 blitz rate sent, 53.7%, was the highest of the 28 team-games charted in week 6 — 0.5 points clear of the next team along.
41 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.8 points. · +1.2σ from their own normal
ATL's early-down pass rate, 74.3%, is past their previous high of 51.9% in week 2 — the highest of their 6 charted games through week 6.
35 early downs this game, floor 15 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 15.3 points. · +1.8σ from their own normal
ATL's pass rate over expected, −0.0 pts, is past their previous high of −1.7 pts in week 5 — the highest of their 6 charted games through week 6.
50 snaps this game, floor 20 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 6.5 points. · +1.2σ from their own normal
ATL's blitz rate sent turned over: 46.2% in week 5 against 22.0% here — they sent pressure then and sat back now, a turn of 2.3 of their own weekly swings across the two.
41 dropbacks this game, floor 12 — 6 of their games behind the ruler, and their own week-to-week swing is 10.3 points. · −0.5σ from their own normal
The season-grain rooms, pointed at this one game
10 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 -25 pts to 17 pts
Over Expected room →Bears6.3 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +6.6 vs their -0.3 pts, and they swing ±6.6 week to week (+1.01× that swing) · 72 snaps
Falcons-0.0 ptsleaned — threw more than the situation asked · +7.7 vs their -7.7 pts, and they swing ±6.5 week to week (+1.19× that swing) · 50 snaps
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 8% to 86%
Tendencies room →Bears56.4%inside their normal wobble · +4.4 vs their 52.0%, and they swing ±8.7 week to week (+0.50× that swing) · 55 early downs
Falcons74.3%leaned — passed early · +26.8 vs their 47.4%, and they swing ±15.3 week to week (+1.76× that swing) · 35 early downs
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -6% to 57%
Tendencies room →Bears36.6%right on their number · +4.6 vs their 32.0%, and they swing ±9.4 week to week (+0.49× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Falcons12.2%inside their normal wobble · −10.8 vs their 23.0%, and they swing ±11.3 week to week (−0.95× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale 4% to 105%
Fourth Down room →Bears—Only 1 fourth-and-short call tonight — too few to read a tendency. Their season number is 60.7%.
Falcons—Only 2 fourth-and-short calls tonight — too few to read a tendency.
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -1% to 70%
Tendencies room →Bears53.7%leaned — sent pressure · +12.5 vs their 41.1%, and they swing ±10.8 week to week (+1.16× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Falcons22.0%right on their number · −4.7 vs their 26.6%, and they swing ±10.3 week to week (−0.45× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
upper band = their week-to-week swing · lower rule = all 32 teams · scale -11% to 48%
Tendencies room →Bears17.1%right on their number · −1.7 vs their 18.8%, and they swing ±11.5 week to week (−0.15× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
Falcons17.1%right on their number · −1.0 vs their 18.0%, and they swing ±3.3 week to week (−0.29× that swing) · 41 dropbacks
ATL's early-down pass rate was the night's one real departure: 74.3%, 26.8 points above their season mean of 47.4% and 1.8 times their own 15.3-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 · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Atlanta Falcons
48 dressed · 7 inactive · 1 never used
Inactive · 7
Dressed, never took a snap · 1
Who moved the needle
Passing · CHI
30/36, 305 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
10.6 expected points added · +15.3% completion over expected
Passing · ATL
19/33, 225 yds, 3 TD, 0 INT
-9.8 expected points added · -7.3% completion over expected
Receiving · CHI
8/8 for 95 yds, 0 TD
24% of team targets · 3.1 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.
Kyle Pitts banked 10.2 more points than his own workload asked for.
| Player | Full PPR | Vs expected | Snap share | Routes | Targets | Air yards | Line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Penix Jr.QB · Starter QB | 23.1 | +2.8 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 19/33, 225 yd, 3 TD · 1 car, 1 yd |
| Kyle PittsTE · Featured Receiver | 23.0 | +10.2 | 78% | — | 21% | 12% | 5/7, 60 yd, 2 TD |
| D'Andre SwiftRB · Committee Back | 23.0 | −0.2 | 58% | — | 15% | 1% | 16 car, 44 yd, 2 TD · 4/5, 26 yd |
| Colston LovelandTE · Featured Receiver | 18.5 | +2.1 | 88% | — | 21% | 28% | 6/7, 65 yd, 1 TD |
| Jahan DotsonWR · Rotational Receiver | 17.7 | +7.9 | 85% | — | 15% | 27% | 3/5, 87 yd, 1 TD |
| Luther Burden IIIWR · Featured Receiver | 17.5 | +3.4 | 39% | — | 24% | 38% | 8/8, 95 yd |
| Caleb WilliamsQB · Starter QB | 16.5 | −4.9 | 100% | — | 0% | — | 30/36, 305 yd, 1 TD · 4 car, 3 yd |
| Roschon JohnsonRB · Committee Back | 14.5 | +3.5 | 40% | — | 6% | 5% | 13 car, 51 yd, 1 TD · 2/2, 34 yd |
| Drake LondonWR · Alpha Receiver | 12.2 | −8.9 | 100% | — | 30% | 44% | 4/10, 62 yd |
| Bijan RobinsonRB · Bell Cow Back | 7.3 | −0.3 | 78% | — | 6% | 0% | 9 car, 61 yd · 2/2, -8 yd |
| Rome OdunzeWR · Rotational Receiver | 6.9 | −0.1 | 96% | — | 12% | 32% | 3/4, 39 yd |
| Zavion ThomasWR · Rotational Receiver | 5.5 | +0.6 | 13% | — | 9% | 3% | 3/3, 25 yd |
| Zachariah BranchWR · Rotational Receiver | 4.9 | +1.2 | 35% | — | 6% | 3% | 2/2, 9 yd |
| Kalif RaymondWR · Rotational Receiver | 3.8 | +0.7 | 47% | — | 6% | 0% | 2/2, 18 yd |
| Brian RobinsonRB | 3.0 | −1.8 | 18% | — | 6% | 3% | 2 car, 1 yd · 2/2, 9 yd |
| Cole KmetTE · Rotational Receiver | 2.3 | −2.6 | 74% | — | 6% | 0% | 2/2, 3 yd |
| Austin HooperTE · Rotational Receiver | 1.6 | −0.2 | — | — | — | — | 7 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Nick MuseTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 3 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Olamide ZaccheausWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | −6.4 | 55% | — | 12% | 14% | 0/4, 0 yd |
| Chris BlairWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | 2 snaps — too few to rate. |
| Jahdae WalkerWR · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 13% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Sam RoushTE · Rotational Receiver | 0.0 | — | 31% | — | 0% | — | No touches. |
| Zavier ScottRB | 0.0 | — | — | — | — | — | Did not take a snap. |
4 players played under 8 snaps, so their shares read as a dash rather than a number. 5 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 Falcons 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.
(11:24) (Shotgun) 18-C.Williams pass short right to 15-R.Odunze to ATL 40 for 2 yards. Lateral to 23-R.Johnson pushed ob at ATL 28 for 12 yards (56-H.Perkins).
Q1 11:24 · Bears · 3rd & 11 at ATL 42 · gained 14 · +3.01 EP · +12.4% win probability
163 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: 176 plays across 25 drives, manual charting on 171. 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 25 drives ended in points. The longest march was ATL moving 91 yards from the ATL 9 for a touchdown. Each bar is the ground a drive actually covered; ATL 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.
176 plays · ranked by the win probability each one moved
176 plays
Bar length is win probability the play movedHow the play was built
Shotgun, a trick play, nobody in motion.
Four rushed the passer, five in the box.
A designed throw, the target set before the snap.
Bears6
Falcons0Bears7Falcons0Bears13Falcons0Bears14Falcons0Bears14Falcons6Bears14Falcons7Bears20Falcons7Bears21Falcons7Bears27Falcons7Bears28Falcons7Bears31Falcons7Bears31Falcons13Bears31Falcons15Bears31Falcons21Bears31Falcons23Win 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 Falcons, every play.
Full stat lines
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caleb Williams | 30/36 | 305 | 1 | 0 | 4 | +10.6 |
| Player | Att | Yds | Avg | TD | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roschon Johnson | 13 | 51 | 3.9 | 1 | −3.2 |
| D'Andre Swift | 16 | 44 | 2.8 | 2 | −2.1 |
| Caleb Williams |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luther Burden III | 8 | 8 | 95 | 0 | 24% | +3.1 |
| Colston Loveland | 6 | 7 | 65 | 1 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devin Bush | 4 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Noah Sewell | 4 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Blackwell |
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT | Sacked | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael Penix Jr. | 19/33 | 225 | 3 | 0 | 5 | −9.8 |
| 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_06_CHI_ATL
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 covered, winning by 8.
Total closed 51.5; the game landed 54 — over by 2.5.
Conditions and crew
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 0.8 |
| 0 |
| −7.8 |
| 21% |
| +4.4 |
| Rome Odunze | 3 | 4 | 39 | 0 | 12% | +6.6 |
| Roschon Johnson | 2 | 2 | 34 | 0 | 6% | +2.4 |
| D'Andre Swift | 4 | 5 | 26 | 0 | 15% | +0.6 |
| Zavion Thomas | 3 | 3 | 25 | 0 | 9% | +1.8 |
| Kalif Raymond | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 6% | +0.2 |
| Cole Kmet | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 6% | −0.3 |
| 2 |
| 2 |
| 0.0 |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Elijah Hicks | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daniel Hardy | 1 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kyler Gordon | 3 | 0 | 3.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zavier Scott | 1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Booker | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Lewis | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Sanborn | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bijan Robinson | 9 | 61 | 6.8 | 0 | −0.5 |
| Michael Penix Jr. | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | −0.7 |
| Brian Robinson | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | −2.3 |
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jahan Dotson | 3 | 5 | 87 | 1 | 15% | +6.6 |
| Drake London | 4 | 10 | 62 | 0 | 30% | −2.3 |
| Kyle Pitts | 5 | 7 | 60 | 2 | 21% | +6.2 |
| Brian Robinson | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 6% | −0.4 |
| Zachariah Branch | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 6% | −1.7 |
| Austin Hooper | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 3% | +0.1 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 12% | −5.3 |
| Bijan Robinson | 2 | 2 | -8 | 0 | 6% | −2.7 |
| Player | Solo | Ast | Sacks | INT | PD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sydney Brown | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kendal Daniels | 6 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jessie Bates | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mike Hughes | 5 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| LaCale London | 3 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Avieon Terrell | 4 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Divine Deablo | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gervon Dexter Sr. | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Harold Perkins Jr. | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Woods | 3 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
