2004 · Week 6
Final
Soldier Field · outdoors · grass · 42°F · wind 12mph
Closing spread
CHI -1.5
Total
33.5
Model margin
+4.4est.
CHI perspective
Push chance
None
half-point line — cannot push
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.
- -0.121EPA / play-0.240
- 38.9%Success rate35.2%
- -0.102EPA / dropback-0.283
- -0.145EPA / rush-0.177
- 6.6%Explosive rate6.8%
- 31.9%Third-down rate25.7%
- 56.8%Red-zone TD rate43.9%
- 1.03Points / drive0.78
- 2.5%Turnover rate3.4%
- -0.104EPA / play allowed-0.102
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 13:28 | 7 | 26 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 10:31 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 8:57 | 7 | 30 | Field goal | 3–0 |
| CHI | Q1 5:41 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–0 |
| WAS | Q1 4:04 | 8 | 79 | Touchdown | 10–0 |
| CHI | Q2 14:53 | 5 | 19 | Punt | 10–0 |
| WAS | Q2 12:25 | 6 | 18 | Punt | 10–0 |
| CHI | Q2 8:39 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 10–0 |
| WAS | Q2 7:36 | 5 | 34 | Opp touchdown | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q2 5:36 | 5 | 15 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 3:48 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q2 2:38 | 6 | 16 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 0:08 | 2 | 27 | End of half | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q3 13:09 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q3 12:11 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q3 11:07 | 4 | 19 | Punt | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q3 8:27 | 6 | 16 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q3 5:13 | 7 | 30 | Punt | 10–7 |
| WAS | Q3 0:56 | 8 | 58 | Field goal | 13–7 |
| CHI | Q4 11:13 | 10 | 34 | Field goal | 13–10 |
| WAS | Q4 5:10 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 13–10 |
| CHI | Q4 3:15 | 3 | -7 | Punt | 13–10 |
| WAS | Q4 2:01 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 13–10 |
| CHI | Q4 1:28 | 6 | 11 | Turnover | 13–10 |
| WAS | Q4 0:13 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 13–10 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 8/22 | 95 | 1 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 36 | 171 | 4.8 | 0 |
| Ladell Betts | 6 | 30 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 5 | 17 | 3.4 | 0 |
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Quinn | 10/22 | 65 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 24 | 97 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Quinn | 2 | 32 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Anthony Thomas | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Bobby Wade | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 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
2.11%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
60.8%
Expected total
42.7est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.18
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+3.43
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+4.38