2003 · Week 16
Final
Soldier Field · outdoors · grass · 46°F · wind 22mph
Closing spread
CHI -4
Total
35
Model margin
+7.7est.
CHI perspective
Push chance
2.5%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Bears
- Commanders
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.
- -0.061EPA / play-0.100
- 40.4%Success rate38.3%
- -0.070EPA / dropback-0.156
- -0.048EPA / rush-0.016
- 7.6%Explosive rate7.4%
- 34.4%Third-down rate33.9%
- 60.1%Red-zone TD rate54.5%
- 1.45Points / drive1.44
- 2.5%Turnover rate2.6%
- +0.048EPA / play allowed-0.013
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
WAS lead 10–5 since 1999
Meetings average 44.4 points. CHI are 5-10 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 | WAS–CHI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 13:24 | 1 | 9 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 13:15 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 11:55 | 4 | 2 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 10:29 | 3 | 0 | Field goal | 3–0 |
| CHI | Q1 10:12 | 1 | 59 | Touchdown | 3–7 |
| WAS | Q1 9:57 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 3–7 |
| CHI | Q1 8:17 | 11 | 73 | Field goal | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q1 2:45 | 4 | 63 | Touchdown | 10–10 |
| CHI | Q1 0:48 | 4 | 11 | Punt | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q2 13:44 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 10–10 |
| CHI | Q2 11:38 | 6 | 16 | Missed field goal | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q2 8:19 | 9 | 62 | Missed field goal | 10–10 |
| CHI | Q2 3:24 | 4 | 0 | Punt | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q2 1:39 | 6 | 50 | Touchdown | 17–10 |
| CHI | Q2 0:16 | 1 | 10 | End of half | 17–10 |
| CHI | Q3 15:00 | 14 | 73 | Touchdown | 17–17 |
| WAS | Q3 8:23 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 17–17 |
| CHI | Q3 7:15 | 12 | 76 | Touchdown | 17–24 |
| WAS | Q3 0:34 | 5 | 63 | Touchdown | 24–24 |
| CHI | Q4 12:52 | 8 | 49 | Missed field goal | 24–24 |
| WAS | Q4 8:09 | 5 | 20 | Punt | 24–24 |
| CHI | Q4 5:12 | 12 | 51 | Field goal | 24–27 |
| WAS | Q4 0:05 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 24–27 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tim Hasselbeck | 16/25 | 209 | 2 | 0 |
| Rod Gardner | 1/2 | 36 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rock Cartwright | 13 | 41 | 3.2 | 0 |
| Tim Hasselbeck | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 0 |
| Chad Morton | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 |
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rex Grossman | 19/32 | 249 | 2 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Thomas | 32 | 141 | 4.4 | 1 |
| Stanley Pritchett | 5 | 33 | 6.6 | 0 |
| Dez White | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Bobby Wade | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Rex Grossman | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 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 Bears; negative favour Commanders.
Half-point at risk
2.47%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
69.0%
Expected total
44.1est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+0.41
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+4.70
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+7.67