2006 · Week 10 · Division
Final
Lincoln Financial Field · outdoors · grass · 61°F · wind 14mph
Closing spread
PHI -9
Total
41.5
Model margin
+5.9est.
PHI perspective
Push chance
1.3%est.
Win probability
- Eagles
- 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+0.055
- 40.9%Success rate43.0%
- +0.034EPA / dropback+0.117
- -0.052EPA / rush-0.049
- 10.8%Explosive rate11.1%
- -2.46CPOE-1.03
- 38.5%Third-down rate42.8%
- 52.5%Red-zone TD rate64.7%
- 1.58Points / drive1.67
- 1.7%Turnover rate2.1%
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
PHI lead 35–22 since 1999
Meetings average 45.4 points. PHI are 27-27-3 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–PHI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | Q1 15:00 | 6 | 30 | Punt | 0–0 |
| PHI | Q1 12:09 | 9 | 58 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| WAS | Q1 8:02 | 8 | 36 | Punt | 0–9 |
| PHI | Q1 3:36 | 1 | 84 | Touchdown | 0–10 |
| WAS | Q1 3:24 | 13 | 37 | Missed field goal | 0–10 |
| PHI | Q2 12:43 | 4 | 32 | Touchdown | 0–17 |
| WAS | Q2 10:44 | 3 | 10 | Punt | 0–17 |
| PHI | Q2 9:18 | 4 | 14 | Punt | 0–17 |
| WAS | Q2 8:06 | 6 | 52 | Field goal | 3–17 |
| PHI | Q2 4:50 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 3–17 |
| WAS | Q2 3:22 | 4 | 11 | Punt | 3–17 |
| PHI | Q2 2:33 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 3–17 |
| WAS | Q2 2:08 | 8 | 28 | Turnover on downs | 3–17 |
| PHI | Q2 0:48 | 3 | 18 | Punt | 3–17 |
| WAS | Q2 0:11 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 3–17 |
| PHI | Q3 15:00 | 11 | 46 | Field goal | 3–20 |
| WAS | Q3 9:14 | 6 | 43 | Opp touchdown | 3–27 |
| WAS | Q3 6:10 | 4 | 22 | Punt | 3–27 |
| PHI | Q3 3:49 | 9 | 50 | Punt | 3–27 |
| WAS | Q4 13:09 | 6 | 10 | Punt | 3–27 |
| PHI | Q4 9:03 | 11 | 58 | End of half | 3–27 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Brunell | 16/31 | 132 | 0 | 1 |
| Antwaan Randle El | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladell Betts | 20 | 83 | 4.2 | 0 |
| Clinton Portis | 6 | 25 | 4.2 | 0 |
| Antwaan Randle El | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 0 |
| T.J. Duckett | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Mark Brunell | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
Eagles
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donovan McNabb | 12/26 | 222 | 1 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brian Westbrook | 22 | 113 | 5.1 | 0 |
| Correll Buckhalter | 8 | 20 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Donovan McNabb | 4 | 12 | 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 Eagles; negative favour Commanders.
Half-point at risk
1.31%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
64.8%
Expected total
47.1est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+2.82
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+5.94