2005 · WC
Final
Raymond James Stadium · outdoors · grass · 52°F · wind 12mph
Closing spread
TB -2.5
Total
37.5
Model margin
+1.4est.
TB perspective
Push chance
None
half-point line — cannot push
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB | Q1 15:00 | 3 | -8 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 13:00 | 9 | 29 | Punt | 0–0 |
| TB | Q1 8:54 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 6–0 |
| WAS | Q1 8:45 | 1 | 6 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| TB | Q1 8:40 | 7 | 28 | Opp touchdown | 14–0 |
| TB | Q1 4:15 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 14–0 |
| WAS | Q1 2:07 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 14–0 |
| TB | Q1 0:30 | 10 | 33 | Field goal | 14–3 |
| WAS | Q2 10:02 | 9 | 40 | Field goal | 17–3 |
| TB | Q2 5:34 | 9 | 38 | Punt | 17–3 |
| WAS | Q2 0:30 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 17–3 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 17–3 |
| TB | Q3 13:03 | 7 | 51 | Touchdown | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q3 9:40 | 6 | 13 | Punt | 17–10 |
| TB | Q3 5:47 | 8 | 17 | Punt | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q3 1:30 | 6 | 6 | Punt | 17–10 |
| TB | Q4 13:18 | 10 | 67 | Turnover on downs | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q4 7:35 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 17–10 |
| TB | Q4 5:58 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q4 5:09 | 4 | 12 | Turnover | 17–10 |
| TB | Q4 3:43 | 4 | 5 | Turnover on downs | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q4 2:48 | 3 | 10 | Punt | 17–10 |
| TB | Q4 1:05 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q4 0:57 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 17–10 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 7/15 | 41 | 0 | 1 |
| Clinton Portis | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 16 | 53 | 3.3 | 1 |
| Ladell Betts | 10 | 25 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Santana Moss | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 0 |
Buccaneers
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Simms | 25/38 | 198 | 0 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cadillac Williams | 18 | 49 | 2.7 | 0 |
| Chris Simms | 3 | 11 | 3.7 | 1 |
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
7.47%
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