1999 · Week 11 · Division
FinalJack Kent Cooke Stadium · outdoors · grass · 58°F · wind 5mph
Closing spread
WAS -5.5
Total
44.5
Model margin
+5.6est.
WAS perspective
Push chance
None
half-point line — cannot push
Win probability
- Commanders
- Giants
How each play moved the game.
Matchup
Where the edges are
Season-long league percentiles for both sides, mirrored. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge.
- -0.084EPA / play+0.098
- 38.6%Success rate44.4%
- -0.016EPA / dropback+0.143
- -0.207EPA / rush+0.036
- 6.4%Explosive rate10.8%
- 35.7%Third-down rate36.2%
- 50.7%Red-zone TD rate68.3%
- 1.14Points / drive1.78
- 2.8%Turnover rate2.2%
- -0.039EPA / play allowed-0.001
Bar length is league percentile, already oriented so longer is better. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge; rows within ~12 points are washed as even.
The rivalry
NYG lead 32–21–2 since 1999
Meetings average 40.1 points. WAS are 24-29-2 ATS in the series.
Possession by possession
How it unfolded
Every drive: who had the ball, how far it went, how it ended, and the score as it settled.
| Ball | Start | Plays | Yards | Result | NYG–WAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYG | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 13:03 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 0–0 |
| NYG | Q1 11:48 | 3 | -5 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 10:27 | 9 | 53 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| NYG | Q1 7:03 | 7 | 19 | Turnover | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q1 3:51 | 5 | 19 | Punt | 0–7 |
| NYG | Q1 1:24 | 2 | -2 | Turnover | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q1 0:39 | 5 | 22 | Missed field goal | 0–7 |
| NYG | Q2 13:41 | 4 | 18 | Punt | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q2 12:09 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 0–7 |
| NYG | Q2 11:50 | 3 | 4 | Field goal | 3–7 |
| WAS | Q2 10:57 | 6 | 60 | Field goal | 3–10 |
| NYG | Q2 7:02 | 5 | 12 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q2 4:04 | 7 | 44 | Turnover | 3–10 |
| NYG | Q2 1:40 | 6 | 71 | Field goal | 6–10 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 9 | 28 | Missed field goal | 6–10 |
| NYG | Q3 10:14 | 3 | 14 | Turnover | 6–10 |
| WAS | Q3 8:51 | 5 | 11 | Punt | 6–10 |
| NYG | Q3 7:12 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 6–10 |
| WAS | Q3 5:49 | 7 | 26 | Field goal | 6–13 |
| NYG | Q3 1:14 | 4 | 10 | Opp touchdown | 6–20 |
| WAS | Q4 14:51 | 0 | 0 | Opp touchdown | 6–20 |
| NYG | Q4 14:51 | 11 | 60 | Touchdown | 13–20 |
| WAS | Q4 10:26 | 7 | 58 | Missed field goal | 13–20 |
| NYG | Q4 6:07 | 6 | 53 | Turnover | 13–20 |
| WAS | Q4 4:05 | 9 | 37 | Field goal | 13–23 |
| NYG | Q4 0:21 | 2 | 43 | End of half | 13–23 |
Box score
Individual performances
Giants
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kerry Collins | 13/21 | 221 | 0 | 1 |
| Kent Graham | 3/10 | 36 | 0 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiki Barber | 10 | 44 | 4.4 | 0 |
| LeShon Johnson | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Kerry Collins | 4 | -3 | -0.8 | 0 |
Receiving
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ike Hilliard | 4 | 5 | 101 | 0 |
| David Patten | 3 | 4 | 51 | 0 |
| Tiki Barber | 4 | 5 | 46 | 0 |
| Pete Mitchell | 3 | 5 | 30 | 0 |
| Amani Toomer | 1 | 4 | 18 | 0 |
| Joe Jurevicius | 1 | 5 | 11 | 0 |
| Sean Bennett | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Howard Cross | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| LeShon Johnson | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brad Johnson | 17/29 | 158 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stephen Davis | 33 | 183 | 5.5 | 1 |
| Skip Hicks | 5 | 14 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Brad Johnson | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 |
Receiving
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| James Jenkins | 1 | 2 | 30 | 0 |
| James Thrash | 1 | 1 | 25 | 0 |
| Albert Connell | 1 | 4 | 16 | 0 |
| Irving Fryar | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 |
| Stephen Davis | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
| Brian Mitchell | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Michael Westbrook | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Stephen Alexander | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Where this game is likely to land
- Model
- Smooth (normal)
- Betting line
Probability of each final margin. Football scoring clusters — the spikes at 3 and 7 are real, and a smooth model misses them.
Positive margins favour Commanders; negative favour Giants.
Half-point at risk
3.20%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
63.9%
Expected total
44.8est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+2.66
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+0.39
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+5.61



