Closing spread
CLE -3
Total
35
Model margin
+0.0est.
CLE perspective
Push chance
7.4%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Browns
- 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-0.131
- 37.0%Success rate39.5%
- -0.147EPA / dropback-0.097
- -0.129EPA / rush-0.183
- 8.0%Explosive rate7.4%
- 28.3%Third-down rate32.4%
- 49.7%Red-zone TD rate38.1%
- 1.08Points / drive1.22
- 2.6%Turnover rate3.1%
- -0.167EPA / play allowed-0.004
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
CHI lead 5–3 since 1999
Meetings average 38.6 points. CLE are 2-5-1 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–CLE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 5 | 13 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CLE | Q1 11:35 | 6 | 52 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 8:16 | 4 | 32 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| CLE | Q1 6:12 | 4 | 16 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| CHI | Q1 4:17 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 0–3 |
| CLE | Q1 2:28 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 0–3 |
| CHI | Q1 0:43 | 5 | 22 | Turnover on downs | 0–3 |
| CLE | Q2 13:38 | 6 | 28 | Turnover | 0–3 |
| CHI | Q2 10:31 | 4 | -2 | Field goal | 3–3 |
| CLE | Q2 9:01 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 3–3 |
| CHI | Q2 7:22 | 9 | 44 | Missed field goal | 3–3 |
| CLE | Q2 2:15 | 7 | 36 | Field goal | 3–6 |
| CHI | Q2 0:37 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 3–6 |
| CLE | Q3 15:00 | 8 | 15 | Punt | 3–6 |
| CHI | Q3 11:47 | 12 | 93 | Touchdown | 10–6 |
| CLE | Q3 5:29 | 7 | 14 | Punt | 10–6 |
| CHI | Q3 2:14 | 1 | -2 | Turnover | 10–6 |
| CLE | Q3 2:04 | 8 | 18 | Punt | 10–6 |
| CHI | Q4 13:12 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 10–6 |
| CLE | Q4 11:24 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 10–6 |
| CHI | Q4 10:34 | 9 | 27 | Punt | 10–6 |
| CLE | Q4 5:47 | 5 | 54 | Touchdown | 10–13 |
| CHI | Q4 3:02 | 3 | -2 | Turnover | 10–13 |
| CLE | Q4 2:37 | 2 | 29 | Touchdown | 10–20 |
| CHI | Q4 2:24 | 6 | 32 | Turnover on downs | 10–20 |
| CLE | Q4 1:15 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 10–20 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Orton | 16/26 | 117 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 24 | 137 | 5.7 | 0 |
| Adrian Peterson | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 |
| Kyle Orton | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 0 |
| Cedric Benson | 5 | 6 | 1.2 | 0 |
Browns
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trent Dilfer | 23/34 | 218 | 2 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuben Droughns | 17 | 72 | 4.2 | 0 |
| William Green | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Trent Dilfer | 2 | -1 | -0.5 | 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 Browns; negative favour Bears.
Half-point at risk
7.36%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
49.2%
Expected total
41.2est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.52
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+0.04



