2005 · Week 10
Final
Raymond James Stadium · outdoors · grass · 81°F · wind 9mph
Closing spread
WAS -1
Total
34
Model margin
+1.4est.
TB perspective
Push chance
2.1%est.
Win probability
- Buccaneers
- Commanders
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.
- +0.014EPA / play-0.066
- 41.3%Success rate39.7%
- +0.100EPA / dropback-0.064
- -0.083EPA / rush-0.068
- 8.5%Explosive rate6.8%
- 43.1%Third-down rate38.9%
- 58.5%Red-zone TD rate57.3%
- 1.80Points / drive1.36
- 2.3%Turnover rate2.2%
- -0.058EPA / play allowed-0.097
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
All square 9–9 since 1999
Meetings average 40.5 points. TB are 7-9-2 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 | WAS–TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | Q1 15:00 | 4 | 12 | Punt | 0–0 |
| TB | Q1 13:20 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 11:46 | 4 | 33 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| TB | Q1 9:42 | 6 | 47 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q1 7:16 | 7 | 56 | Field goal | 3–7 |
| TB | Q1 3:33 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–7 |
| WAS | Q1 1:44 | 7 | 49 | Turnover | 3–7 |
| TB | Q2 12:39 | 5 | 26 | Punt | 3–7 |
| WAS | Q2 9:51 | 3 | -15 | Turnover | 3–7 |
| TB | Q2 8:34 | 2 | 5 | Touchdown | 9–14 |
| WAS | Q2 7:52 | 0 | 0 | Touchdown | 10–14 |
| TB | Q2 7:36 | 5 | 52 | Touchdown | 10–21 |
| WAS | Q2 5:08 | 9 | 53 | Field goal | 13–21 |
| TB | Q2 1:36 | 3 | 11 | End of half | 13–21 |
| TB | Q3 15:00 | 1 | -4 | Turnover | 13–21 |
| WAS | Q3 14:44 | 3 | 7 | Touchdown | 21–21 |
| TB | Q3 13:14 | 5 | 10 | Punt | 21–21 |
| WAS | Q3 10:40 | 10 | 83 | Touchdown | 28–21 |
| TB | Q3 5:19 | 7 | 70 | Touchdown | 28–28 |
| WAS | Q3 1:53 | 16 | 76 | Touchdown | 35–28 |
| TB | Q4 8:19 | 11 | 64 | Turnover on downs | 35–28 |
| WAS | Q4 3:37 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 35–28 |
| TB | Q4 1:52 | 4 | 54 | Touchdown | 35–36 |
| WAS | Q4 0:58 | 5 | 26 | Turnover on downs | 35–36 |
| TB | Q4 0:20 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 35–36 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 23/35 | 226 | 2 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 23 | 144 | 6.3 | 1 |
| Ladell Betts | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 3 | 15 | 5.0 | 0 |
Buccaneers
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Simms | 15/29 | 279 | 3 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadillac Williams | 10 | 20 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Michael Pittman | 5 | 15 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Chris Simms | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 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 Buccaneers; negative favour Commanders.
Half-point at risk
2.13%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
53.0%
Expected total
42.8est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-1.12
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+1.45