Closing spread
TEN -3
Total
41
Model margin
+2.0est.
TEN perspective
Push chance
7.5%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Titans
- Texans
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.
- -0.062EPA / play-0.086
- 43.2%Success rate37.6%
- -0.069EPA / dropback-0.059
- -0.052EPA / rush-0.118
- 6.8%Explosive rate9.1%
- +4.14CPOE-5.37
- 38.7%Third-down rate32.7%
- 64.6%Red-zone TD rate58.2%
- 1.41Points / drive1.35
- 2.4%Turnover rate2.7%
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
HOU lead 25–24 since 1999
HOU have won 4 straight. Meetings average 43.4 points. TEN are 19-29-1 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 | HOU–TEN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEN | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q1 13:20 | 9 | 39 | Turnover | 0–0 |
| TEN | Q1 8:21 | 4 | 20 | Punt | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q1 6:09 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 0–0 |
| TEN | Q1 4:11 | 6 | 2 | Punt | 0–0 |
| HOU | Q1 1:55 | 5 | 21 | Punt | 0–0 |
| TEN | Q2 14:07 | 7 | 54 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| HOU | Q2 10:08 | 11 | 65 | Field goal | 3–7 |
| TEN | Q2 4:46 | 4 | 19 | Punt | 3–7 |
| HOU | Q2 2:31 | 8 | 35 | Opp touchdown | 3–14 |
| HOU | Q2 0:08 | 0 | 0 | Turnover | 3–14 |
| HOU | Q3 15:00 | 7 | 42 | Turnover | 3–14 |
| TEN | Q3 12:02 | 4 | 6 | Punt | 3–14 |
| HOU | Q3 9:51 | 2 | 5 | Turnover | 3–14 |
| TEN | Q3 8:43 | 3 | 24 | Touchdown | 3–21 |
| HOU | Q3 8:13 | 10 | 68 | Touchdown | 10–21 |
| TEN | Q3 1:46 | 7 | 37 | Punt | 10–21 |
| HOU | Q4 12:00 | 3 | 5 | Opp touchdown | 10–28 |
| HOU | Q4 10:52 | 10 | 69 | Touchdown | 16–28 |
| TEN | Q4 7:37 | 4 | 24 | Punt | 16–28 |
| HOU | Q4 5:37 | 11 | 75 | Touchdown | 22–28 |
| TEN | Q4 1:54 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 22–28 |
| HOU | Q4 0:04 | 1 | 3 | End of half | 22–28 |
Box score
Individual performances
Texans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sage Rosenfels | 18/25 | 186 | 3 | 1 |
| David Carr | 15/21 | 113 | 0 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wali Lundy | 18 | 116 | 6.4 | 0 |
| Ron Dayne | 5 | 16 | 3.2 | 0 |
| Sage Rosenfels | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| David Carr | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Jameel Cook | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
Titans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vince Young | 7/15 | 87 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vince Young | 4 | 44 | 11.0 | 1 |
| LenDale White | 7 | 35 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Travis Henry | 15 | 29 | 1.9 | 0 |
| Brandon Jones | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 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 Titans; negative favour Texans.
Half-point at risk
7.50%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
54.4%
Expected total
45.1est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-1.16
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+1.96