Closing spread
CIN -9
Total
36.5
Model margin
+2.1est.
CIN perspective
Push chance
1.2%est.
Win probability
- Bengals
- 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+0.102
- 38.7%Success rate48.2%
- -0.061EPA / dropback+0.159
- -0.179EPA / rush+0.023
- 7.2%Explosive rate9.1%
- 39.5%Third-down rate43.8%
- 39.7%Red-zone TD rate60.3%
- 1.20Points / drive2.30
- 3.2%Turnover rate1.9%
- -0.088EPA / play allowed+0.010
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 30–26 since 1999
Meetings average 43.1 points. CIN are 29-25-2 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 | BAL–CIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAL | Q1 15:00 | 11 | 40 | Punt | 0–0 |
| CIN | Q1 8:57 | 14 | 86 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| BAL | Q1 0:50 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 0–3 |
| CIN | Q2 14:42 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 0–3 |
| BAL | Q2 13:14 | 3 | -6 | Punt | 0–3 |
| CIN | Q2 11:25 | 1 | 17 | Turnover | 0–3 |
| BAL | Q2 11:15 | 7 | -10 | Punt | 0–3 |
| CIN | Q2 8:53 | 6 | 61 | Touchdown | 0–10 |
| BAL | Q2 7:24 | 3 | 12 | Turnover | 0–10 |
| CIN | Q2 6:06 | 6 | 69 | Touchdown | 0–17 |
| BAL | Q2 3:42 | 6 | 13 | Punt | 0–17 |
| CIN | Q2 1:52 | 5 | -1 | Punt | 0–17 |
| BAL | Q2 0:12 | 1 | 9 | Missed field goal | 0–17 |
| CIN | Q3 15:00 | 4 | 40 | Touchdown | 0–24 |
| BAL | Q3 13:50 | 6 | 13 | Turnover | 0–24 |
| CIN | Q3 11:57 | 2 | 27 | Touchdown | 0–31 |
| BAL | Q3 11:10 | 2 | 12 | Turnover | 0–31 |
| CIN | Q3 10:20 | 8 | 34 | Field goal | 0–34 |
| BAL | Q3 6:18 | 8 | 69 | Touchdown | 7–34 |
| CIN | Q3 1:47 | 3 | 30 | Turnover | 13–34 |
| BAL | Q3 0:23 | 1 | 34 | Touchdown | 14–34 |
| CIN | Q3 0:15 | 2 | -3 | Turnover | 14–34 |
| BAL | Q4 14:43 | 6 | 29 | Touchdown | 21–34 |
| CIN | Q4 11:58 | 9 | 61 | Touchdown | 21–42 |
| BAL | Q4 6:03 | 10 | 89 | Touchdown | 29–42 |
| CIN | Q4 1:57 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 29–42 |
| BAL | Q4 0:52 | 4 | 16 | End of half | 29–42 |
Box score
Individual performances
Ravens
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Boller | 18/32 | 211 | 3 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jamal Lewis | 23 | 113 | 4.9 | 1 |
| Kyle Boller | 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Mark Clayton | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Justin Green | 5 | 4 | 0.8 | 0 |
Bengals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carson Palmer | 22/30 | 302 | 3 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rudi Johnson | 27 | 114 | 4.2 | 2 |
| Carson Palmer | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 |
| T.J. Houshmandzadeh | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Chris Perry | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 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 Bengals; negative favour Ravens.
Half-point at risk
1.19%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
54.8%
Expected total
44.3est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-0.42
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+2.14