Closing spread
CHI -1
Total
34
Model margin
+0.3est.
CHI perspective
Push chance
2.2%est.
Win probability
- Bears
- Texans
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.
- -0.022EPA / play-0.240
- 41.4%Success rate35.2%
- +0.060EPA / dropback-0.283
- -0.134EPA / rush-0.177
- 8.3%Explosive rate6.8%
- 38.7%Third-down rate25.7%
- 65.1%Red-zone TD rate43.9%
- 1.44Points / drive0.78
- 2.3%Turnover rate3.4%
- -0.004EPA / 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
HOU lead 5–2 since 1999
Meetings average 36.9 points. CHI are 1-4-2 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 | HOU–CHI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 13 | 56 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q1 8:05 | 6 | 41 | Missed field goal | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 3:46 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q1 1:24 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q2 14:46 | 5 | 17 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q2 12:46 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q2 10:50 | 6 | 26 | Missed field goal | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q2 7:04 | 7 | 41 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q2 3:18 | 5 | 25 | Punt | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q2 1:48 | 7 | 77 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| CHI | Q2 0:27 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 7–0 |
| HOU | Q2 0:09 | 2 | -4 | End of half | 7–0 |
| HOU | Q3 15:00 | 5 | 17 | Punt | 7–0 |
| CHI | Q3 11:29 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 7–0 |
| HOU | Q3 9:55 | 4 | 14 | Punt | 7–0 |
| CHI | Q3 7:54 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 7–0 |
| HOU | Q3 6:17 | 3 | -2 | Punt | 7–0 |
| CHI | Q3 5:15 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 7–0 |
| HOU | Q3 4:47 | 2 | 0 | Safety | 7–2 |
| CHI | Q3 4:06 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 7–2 |
| HOU | Q3 2:33 | 3 | -8 | Punt | 7–2 |
| CHI | Q3 0:35 | 3 | 8 | Field goal | 7–5 |
| HOU | Q4 14:09 | 6 | 76 | Field goal | 10–5 |
| CHI | Q4 11:37 | 4 | -12 | Punt | 10–5 |
| HOU | Q4 10:01 | 13 | 56 | Touchdown | 17–5 |
| CHI | Q4 4:23 | 7 | 29 | Opp touchdown | 24–5 |
| CHI | Q4 2:37 | 8 | 36 | Turnover on downs | 24–5 |
| HOU | Q4 1:02 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 24–5 |
Box score
Individual performances
Texans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Carr | 13/28 | 220 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domanick Williams | 25 | 95 | 3.8 | 1 |
| David Carr | 6 | 8 | 1.3 | 0 |
| Jonathan Wells | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 |
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chad Hutchinson | 17/34 | 168 | 0 | 1 |
| Paul Edinger | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 15 | 40 | 2.7 | 0 |
| Anthony Thomas | 6 | 21 | 3.5 | 0 |
| Chad Hutchinson | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Bernard Berrian | 2 | -7 | -3.5 | 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 Texans.
Half-point at risk
2.16%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
49.8%
Expected total
43.4est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.29
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+0.27