Closing spread
BAL -1
Total
36
Model margin
+0.8est.
CIN perspective
Push chance
2.1%est.
Win probability
- Bengals
- Ravens
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.
- -0.093EPA / play+0.049
- 38.5%Success rate43.9%
- -0.112EPA / dropback+0.126
- -0.074EPA / rush-0.053
- 9.7%Explosive rate7.6%
- 31.7%Third-down rate44.6%
- 53.9%Red-zone TD rate62.0%
- 1.53Points / drive1.83
- 3.5%Turnover rate1.9%
- -0.194EPA / play allowed+0.077
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
BAL lead 30–26 since 1999
Meetings average 43.1 points. CIN are 29-25-2 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 | BAL–CIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAL | Q1 15:00 | 9 | 73 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| CIN | Q1 10:15 | 3 | -3 | Punt | 7–0 |
| BAL | Q1 9:11 | 4 | 4 | Turnover | 7–0 |
| CIN | Q1 7:40 | 3 | 47 | Touchdown | 7–7 |
| BAL | Q1 6:47 | 2 | -3 | Turnover | 7–7 |
| CIN | Q1 5:52 | 4 | 15 | Touchdown | 7–14 |
| BAL | Q1 4:11 | 8 | 38 | Punt | 7–20 |
| CIN | Q2 14:52 | 1 | 82 | Touchdown | 7–21 |
| BAL | Q2 14:40 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 7–21 |
| CIN | Q2 12:23 | 3 | -12 | Punt | 7–21 |
| BAL | Q2 10:37 | 4 | 15 | Turnover | 7–21 |
| CIN | Q2 8:51 | 5 | 20 | Field goal | 7–24 |
| BAL | Q2 6:24 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 7–24 |
| CIN | Q2 4:25 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 7–24 |
| BAL | Q2 2:47 | 7 | 43 | Punt | 7–24 |
| CIN | Q2 0:37 | 1 | -6 | End of half | 7–24 |
| CIN | Q3 15:00 | 11 | 57 | Field goal | 7–27 |
| BAL | Q3 8:51 | 10 | 39 | Field goal | 10–27 |
| CIN | Q3 5:04 | 11 | 82 | Touchdown | 10–34 |
| BAL | Q4 14:53 | 2 | 73 | Touchdown | 18–34 |
| CIN | Q4 14:29 | 3 | -10 | Punt | 18–34 |
| BAL | Q4 12:16 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 18–34 |
| CIN | Q4 10:53 | 9 | 34 | Punt | 18–34 |
| BAL | Q4 5:04 | 12 | 94 | Touchdown | 26–34 |
| CIN | Q4 1:16 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 26–34 |
Box score
Individual performances
Ravens
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Boller | 15/27 | 302 | 2 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jamal Lewis | 19 | 101 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Chester Taylor | 5 | 10 | 2.0 | 1 |
| Travis Taylor | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Kyle Boller | 4 | -2 | -0.5 | 0 |
Bengals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Kitna | 16/27 | 274 | 3 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corey Dillon | 18 | 39 | 2.2 | 1 |
| Jon Kitna | 4 | 7 | 1.8 | 0 |
| Brandon Bennett | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Rudi Johnson | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 0 |
| Peter Warrick | 1 | 3 | 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 Bengals; negative favour Ravens.
Half-point at risk
2.14%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
51.1%
Expected total
44.4est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.37
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+0.75