2005 · Week 1
Final
FedExField · outdoors · grass · 83°F · wind 0mph
Closing spread
WAS -6
Total
33
Model margin
+4.2est.
WAS perspective
Push chance
3.2%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Commanders
- Bears
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.
- -0.138EPA / play+0.014
- 37.0%Success rate41.3%
- -0.147EPA / dropback+0.100
- -0.129EPA / rush-0.083
- 8.0%Explosive rate8.5%
- 28.3%Third-down rate43.1%
- 49.7%Red-zone TD rate58.5%
- 1.08Points / drive1.80
- 2.6%Turnover rate2.3%
- -0.167EPA / play allowed-0.058
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. WAS are 10-5 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 | CHI–WAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 13:16 | 5 | 8 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 11:07 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 9:39 | 13 | 41 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 3:17 | 6 | 27 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 0:54 | 10 | 80 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q2 11:00 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q2 9:23 | 6 | 7 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| CHI | Q2 7:34 | 7 | 23 | Punt | 0–3 |
| WAS | Q2 3:17 | 7 | 47 | Field goal | 0–6 |
| CHI | Q2 1:00 | 4 | 16 | Punt | 0–6 |
| WAS | Q2 0:16 | 1 | 7 | End of half | 0–6 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 0 | 0 | Touchdown | 0–6 |
| CHI | Q3 14:55 | 7 | 23 | Touchdown | 7–6 |
| WAS | Q3 11:28 | 14 | 63 | Field goal | 7–9 |
| CHI | Q3 2:54 | 5 | 36 | Turnover | 7–9 |
| WAS | Q3 0:06 | 4 | 35 | Punt | 7–9 |
| CHI | Q4 12:48 | 11 | 28 | Punt | 7–9 |
| WAS | Q4 5:42 | 8 | 38 | Punt | 7–9 |
| CHI | Q4 1:43 | 2 | -5 | Turnover | 7–9 |
| WAS | Q4 1:32 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 7–9 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Orton | 15/28 | 141 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 15 | 31 | 2.1 | 1 |
| Cedric Benson | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 0 |
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patrick Ramsey | 6/11 | 105 | 0 | 1 |
| Mark Brunell | 8/14 | 70 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 21 | 121 | 5.8 | 0 |
| Ladell Betts | 12 | 41 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Antonio Brown | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Patrick Ramsey | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 5 | -2 | -0.4 | 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 Bears.
Half-point at risk
3.17%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
60.3%
Expected total
41.8est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+1.39
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+0.25
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+4.20