2004 · Week 1
Final
FedExField · outdoors · grass · 81°F · wind 5mph
Closing spread
WAS -2.5
Total
38.5
Model margin
+2.8est.
WAS perspective
Push chance
None
half-point line — cannot push
Win probability
- Commanders
- Buccaneers
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.
- -0.072EPA / play-0.121
- 42.6%Success rate38.9%
- +0.008EPA / dropback-0.102
- -0.203EPA / rush-0.145
- 8.5%Explosive rate6.6%
- 37.9%Third-down rate31.9%
- 58.7%Red-zone TD rate56.8%
- 1.25Points / drive1.03
- 3.6%Turnover rate2.5%
- -0.089EPA / play allowed-0.104
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
All square 9–9 since 1999
Meetings average 40.5 points. WAS are 9-7-2 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 | TB–WAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 12:49 | 3 | 74 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| TB | Q1 11:29 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q1 9:11 | 8 | 40 | Missed field goal | 0–7 |
| TB | Q1 4:19 | 2 | -6 | Turnover | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q1 4:09 | 9 | 32 | Field goal | 0–10 |
| TB | Q2 14:32 | 3 | 5 | Field goal | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q2 12:57 | 4 | 9 | Punt | 3–10 |
| TB | Q2 11:22 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q2 9:59 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 3–10 |
| TB | Q2 8:56 | 6 | 21 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q2 5:47 | 6 | 38 | Punt | 3–10 |
| TB | Q2 1:52 | 5 | 28 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q2 0:24 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 3–10 |
| TB | Q3 13:21 | 10 | 57 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q3 8:08 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–10 |
| TB | Q3 6:51 | 5 | 27 | Punt | 3–10 |
| WAS | Q3 5:28 | 2 | 3 | Opp touchdown | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q3 4:44 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TB | Q3 3:04 | 5 | 14 | Punt | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q3 0:39 | 4 | 20 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TB | Q4 13:39 | 4 | 17 | Turnover | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q4 11:49 | 5 | 27 | Field goal | 10–13 |
| TB | Q4 8:55 | 6 | -1 | Punt | 10–13 |
| WAS | Q4 5:03 | 10 | 32 | Field goal | 10–16 |
| TB | Q4 0:16 | 1 | -10 | End of half | 10–16 |
Box score
Individual performances
Buccaneers
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brad Johnson | 24/37 | 169 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charlie Garner | 11 | 25 | 2.3 | 0 |
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 13/24 | 125 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 29 | 148 | 5.1 | 1 |
| Ladell Betts | 5 | 17 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 5 | 1 | 0.2 | 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 Buccaneers.
Half-point at risk
7.52%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
56.7%
Expected total
42.7est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+0.03
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+0.24
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+2.83