Closing spread
CHI -1
Total
32
Model margin
+3.3est.
CHI perspective
Push chance
2.1%est.
Win probability
- Bears
- Ravens
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.
- -0.109EPA / play-0.138
- 38.7%Success rate37.0%
- -0.061EPA / dropback-0.147
- -0.179EPA / rush-0.129
- 7.2%Explosive rate8.0%
- 39.5%Third-down rate28.3%
- 39.7%Red-zone TD rate49.7%
- 1.20Points / drive1.08
- 3.2%Turnover rate2.6%
- -0.088EPA / play allowed-0.167
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
BAL lead 4–3 since 1999
BAL have won 2 straight. Meetings average 35.1 points. CHI are 3-4 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 | BAL–CHI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BAL | Q1 13:39 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 12:07 | 4 | 8 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BAL | Q1 10:40 | 3 | -1 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 9:08 | 5 | 41 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BAL | Q1 6:37 | 4 | 31 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CHI | Q1 3:56 | 10 | 58 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| BAL | Q1 0:19 | 3 | -2 | Punt | 0–7 |
| CHI | Q2 14:22 | 4 | 4 | Punt | 0–7 |
| BAL | Q2 12:35 | 8 | 44 | Field goal | 3–7 |
| CHI | Q2 8:46 | 3 | -9 | Punt | 3–7 |
| BAL | Q2 6:35 | 12 | 71 | Field goal | 6–7 |
| CHI | Q2 0:26 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 6–7 |
| BAL | Q3 15:00 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 6–7 |
| CHI | Q3 13:55 | 8 | 26 | Punt | 6–7 |
| BAL | Q3 10:39 | 6 | 15 | Punt | 6–7 |
| CHI | Q3 7:09 | 9 | 30 | Field goal | 6–10 |
| BAL | Q3 2:52 | 8 | 38 | Punt | 6–10 |
| CHI | Q4 14:09 | 12 | 51 | Missed field goal | 6–10 |
| BAL | Q4 7:57 | 5 | -4 | Punt | 6–10 |
| CHI | Q4 5:51 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 6–10 |
| BAL | Q4 4:11 | 6 | 2 | Punt | 6–10 |
| CHI | Q4 2:53 | 5 | 52 | End of half | 6–10 |
Box score
Individual performances
Ravens
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Wright | 18/32 | 164 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jamal Lewis | 15 | 34 | 2.3 | 0 |
| Chester Taylor | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 |
| Anthony Wright | 5 | 11 | 2.2 | 0 |
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Orton | 15/29 | 145 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 25 | 139 | 5.6 | 0 |
| Cedric Benson | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Kyle Orton | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 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 Ravens.
Half-point at risk
2.13%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
57.9%
Expected total
41.1est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-0.50
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment+1.25
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+3.31



