Closing spread
BUF -3
Total
41
Model margin
+2.9est.
CIN perspective
Push chance
6.9%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Bengals
- Bills
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.
- -0.073EPA / play-0.059
- 40.7%Success rate43.2%
- -0.012EPA / dropback-0.020
- -0.139EPA / rush-0.114
- 8.2%Explosive rate8.8%
- 35.8%Third-down rate40.8%
- 48.1%Red-zone TD rate53.2%
- 1.71Points / drive1.40
- 2.7%Turnover rate3.1%
- -0.135EPA / play allowed-0.048
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. CIN are 8-7 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 | BUF–CIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIN | Q1 15:00 | 6 | 30 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 12:19 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 10:52 | 3 | -4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 9:05 | 3 | 8 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 7:30 | 7 | 28 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| BUF | Q1 4:48 | 4 | 65 | Touchdown | 7–7 |
| CIN | Q1 4:07 | 3 | 0 | Opp touchdown | 14–7 |
| CIN | Q1 3:37 | 11 | 48 | Opp touchdown | 21–7 |
| CIN | Q2 12:36 | 9 | 55 | Field goal | 21–10 |
| BUF | Q2 6:53 | 5 | 9 | Punt | 21–10 |
| CIN | Q2 4:51 | 2 | 2 | Turnover | 21–10 |
| BUF | Q2 4:14 | 6 | 17 | Field goal | 24–10 |
| CIN | Q2 1:13 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 24–10 |
| BUF | Q2 0:59 | 4 | 13 | Field goal | 27–10 |
| BUF | Q3 15:00 | 3 | -4 | Punt | 27–10 |
| CIN | Q3 13:52 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 27–10 |
| BUF | Q3 11:26 | 5 | 21 | Punt | 27–10 |
| CIN | Q3 8:25 | 6 | 8 | Punt | 27–10 |
| BUF | Q3 5:26 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 27–10 |
| CIN | Q3 4:21 | 2 | 23 | Turnover | 27–10 |
| BUF | Q3 3:31 | 9 | 37 | Field goal | 30–10 |
| CIN | Q4 12:58 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 30–10 |
| BUF | Q4 11:55 | 11 | 38 | Field goal | 33–10 |
| CIN | Q4 5:31 | 9 | 66 | Touchdown | 33–17 |
| BUF | Q4 3:09 | 6 | 0 | Turnover on downs | 33–17 |
| CIN | Q4 1:08 | 2 | 5 | End of half | 33–17 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bills
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drew Bledsoe | 15/30 | 183 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaud Williams | 14 | 30 | 2.1 | 0 |
| Willis McGahee | 11 | 25 | 2.3 | 0 |
| Drew Bledsoe | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 |
| Lee Evans | 1 | -14 | -14.0 | 0 |
Bengals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Kitna | 16/32 | 151 | 1 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rudi Johnson | 23 | 130 | 5.7 | 1 |
| Kenny Watson | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Jon Kitna | 4 | 8 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Chad Johnson | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 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 Bills.
Half-point at risk
6.90%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
56.9%
Expected total
41.5est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-1.68
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+2.05
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+2.93