Closing spread
BUF -7
Total
40
Model margin
+2.1est.
BUF perspective
Push chance
4.7%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Bills
- Bengals
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.
- +0.049EPA / play-0.117
- 43.9%Success rate39.7%
- +0.126EPA / dropback-0.140
- -0.053EPA / rush-0.085
- 7.6%Explosive rate7.4%
- 44.6%Third-down rate31.3%
- 62.0%Red-zone TD rate42.0%
- 1.83Points / drive1.19
- 1.9%Turnover rate3.2%
- +0.077EPA / play allowed-0.087
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
BUF lead 9–6 since 1999
Meetings average 48.3 points. BUF are 7-8 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 | CIN–BUF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIN | Q1 15:00 | 8 | 29 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 10:32 | 3 | -5 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 9:40 | 3 | -1 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 8:41 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 7:24 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 5:34 | 9 | 49 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| CIN | Q1 0:50 | 6 | 26 | Turnover | 0–3 |
| BUF | Q2 12:16 | 4 | 6 | Turnover on downs | 0–3 |
| CIN | Q2 11:22 | 12 | 60 | Field goal | 3–3 |
| BUF | Q2 6:20 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–3 |
| CIN | Q2 5:27 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–3 |
| BUF | Q2 4:27 | 4 | 9 | Punt | 3–3 |
| CIN | Q2 2:55 | 7 | 37 | Field goal | 6–3 |
| BUF | Q2 1:00 | 3 | -9 | Punt | 6–3 |
| CIN | Q2 0:08 | 1 | 7 | Missed field goal | 6–3 |
| BUF | Q3 15:00 | 7 | 54 | Field goal | 6–6 |
| CIN | Q3 11:26 | 10 | 35 | Punt | 6–6 |
| BUF | Q3 6:25 | 6 | 2 | Punt | 6–6 |
| CIN | Q3 3:07 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 6–6 |
| BUF | Q3 3:01 | 5 | 35 | Touchdown | 6–13 |
| CIN | Q3 0:42 | 13 | 59 | Touchdown | 13–13 |
| BUF | Q4 9:14 | 3 | -16 | Punt | 13–13 |
| CIN | Q4 7:34 | 3 | 8 | Field goal | 16–13 |
| BUF | Q4 5:33 | 13 | 69 | Field goal | 16–16 |
| CIN | Q4 0:28 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 16–16 |
| CIN | OT | 3 | 8 | Punt | 16–16 |
| BUF | OT | 5 | 53 | Touchdown | 16–22 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bengals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Kitna | 26/44 | 225 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rudi Johnson | 20 | 69 | 3.5 | 1 |
| Brandon Bennett | 6 | -1 | -0.2 | 0 |
| Jon Kitna | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
Bills
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drew Bledsoe | 19/35 | 211 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travis Henry | 25 | 85 | 3.4 | 1 |
| Drew Bledsoe | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Joe Burns | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 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 Bills; negative favour Bengals.
Half-point at risk
4.69%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
54.8%
Expected total
44.6est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-0.45
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+2.11