2006 · Week 5 · Division
Final
Giants Stadium · outdoors · fieldturf · 66°F · wind 1mph
Closing spread
NYG -6
Total
46
Model margin
+4.3est.
NYG perspective
Push chance
3.2%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Giants
- 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.
- -0.006EPA / play-0.017
- 40.9%Success rate45.6%
- +0.034EPA / dropback-0.017
- -0.052EPA / rush-0.017
- 10.8%Explosive rate9.6%
- -2.46CPOE-3.95
- 38.5%Third-down rate38.8%
- 52.5%Red-zone TD rate62.8%
- 1.58Points / drive1.77
- 1.7%Turnover rate2.5%
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
NYG lead 32–21–2 since 1999
Meetings average 40.1 points. NYG are 29-24-2 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–NYG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | Q1 15:00 | 6 | 19 | Punt | 0–0 |
| NYG | Q1 11:19 | 9 | 49 | Missed field goal | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 7:28 | 11 | 37 | Field goal | 3–0 |
| NYG | Q1 2:59 | 7 | 60 | Field goal | 3–3 |
| WAS | Q2 14:15 | 3 | -3 | Punt | 3–3 |
| NYG | Q2 12:35 | 4 | 52 | Field goal | 3–6 |
| WAS | Q2 9:50 | 6 | 47 | Punt | 3–6 |
| NYG | Q2 4:28 | 14 | 95 | Field goal | 3–9 |
| WAS | Q2 0:02 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 3–9 |
| NYG | Q3 15:00 | 15 | 79 | Touchdown | 3–16 |
| WAS | Q3 6:55 | 11 | 55 | Missed field goal | 3–16 |
| NYG | Q3 1:09 | 9 | 44 | Punt | 3–16 |
| WAS | Q4 11:35 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 3–16 |
| NYG | Q4 10:12 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 3–16 |
| WAS | Q4 8:34 | 4 | 7 | Punt | 3–16 |
| NYG | Q4 6:42 | 8 | 32 | Field goal | 3–19 |
| WAS | Q4 2:50 | 4 | 2 | Turnover on downs | 3–19 |
| NYG | Q4 1:52 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 3–19 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 12/22 | 109 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 19 | 76 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Ladell Betts | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
Giants
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eli Manning | 23/33 | 256 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiki Barber | 23 | 123 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Brandon Jacobs | 9 | 26 | 2.9 | 0 |
| Eli Manning | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 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 Giants; negative favour Commanders.
Half-point at risk
3.17%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
60.4%
Expected total
46.9est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+1.13
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+4.25