Closing spread
CHI -6
Total
41.5
Model margin
-0.1est.
DET perspective
Push chance
2.9%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Lions
- Bears
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.
- -0.046EPA / play-0.112
- 40.3%Success rate42.6%
- -0.039EPA / dropback-0.057
- -0.054EPA / rush-0.242
- 9.4%Explosive rate8.0%
- -3.50CPOE+0.25
- 37.7%Third-down rate33.0%
- 50.6%Red-zone TD rate53.4%
- 1.80Points / drive1.48
- 3.0%Turnover rate3.9%
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
CHI lead 28–26 since 1999
DET have won 4 straight. Meetings average 43.4 points. DET are 27-24-3 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 | CHI–DET |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI | Q1 15:00 | 14 | 62 | Field goal | 3–0 |
| DET | Q1 8:38 | 4 | 13 | Punt | 3–0 |
| CHI | Q1 6:39 | 6 | 22 | Punt | 3–0 |
| DET | Q1 3:19 | 2 | 49 | Touchdown | 3–7 |
| CHI | Q1 2:32 | 9 | 75 | Touchdown | 10–7 |
| DET | Q2 14:05 | 4 | 8 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 12:51 | 4 | 7 | Punt | 10–7 |
| DET | Q2 11:27 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 9:50 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 10–7 |
| DET | Q2 7:59 | 3 | -2 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 6:21 | 5 | 23 | Punt | 10–7 |
| DET | Q2 4:10 | 4 | 6 | Punt | 10–7 |
| CHI | Q2 2:42 | 7 | 49 | Touchdown | 17–7 |
| DET | Q2 0:26 | 3 | 8 | Turnover on downs | 17–7 |
| DET | Q3 15:00 | 8 | 75 | Touchdown | 17–14 |
| CHI | Q3 10:53 | 3 | -4 | Punt | 17–14 |
| DET | Q3 9:33 | 11 | 61 | Touchdown | 17–21 |
| CHI | Q3 4:27 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 17–21 |
| DET | Q3 3:50 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 17–21 |
| CHI | Q3 3:26 | 13 | 53 | Field goal | 20–21 |
| DET | Q4 12:21 | 5 | 20 | Punt | 20–21 |
| CHI | Q4 10:07 | 11 | 57 | Field goal | 23–21 |
| DET | Q4 5:13 | 3 | 13 | Turnover | 23–21 |
| CHI | Q4 3:46 | 3 | 6 | Field goal | 26–21 |
| DET | Q4 2:50 | 15 | 68 | End of half | 26–21 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bears
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rex Grossman | 20/36 | 197 | 1 | 0 |
| Brian Griese | 6/9 | 51 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jones | 12 | 62 | 5.2 | 0 |
| Cedric Benson | 15 | 49 | 3.3 | 0 |
| Adrian Peterson | 3 | 5 | 1.7 | 1 |
Lions
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Kitna | 27/45 | 283 | 3 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arlen Harris | 10 | 44 | 4.4 | 0 |
| Aveion Cason | 5 | 31 | 6.2 | 0 |
| Lamar Gordon | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Jon Kitna | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Devale Ellis | 1 | -9 | -9.0 | 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 Lions; negative favour Bears.
Half-point at risk
2.93%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
48.9%
Expected total
41.4est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-2.63
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin-0.06