2007 · Week 5
Final
FedExField · outdoors · grass · 88°F · wind 8mph
Closing spread
WAS -4
Total
44.5
Model margin
+5.5est.
WAS perspective
Push chance
2.5%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Commanders
- Lions
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.
- -0.065EPA / play-0.040
- 42.9%Success rate41.8%
- -0.034EPA / dropback+0.089
- -0.134EPA / rush-0.199
- 8.6%Explosive rate8.2%
- +1.53CPOE+2.48
- 32.3%Third-down rate41.1%
- 54.4%Red-zone TD rate54.1%
- 1.58Points / drive1.59
- 3.5%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
DET lead 9–6 since 1999
Meetings average 46.5 points. WAS are 6-9 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 | DET–WAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WAS | Q1 15:00 | 12 | 48 | Punt | 0–0 |
| DET | Q1 7:22 | 4 | 12 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 5:08 | 5 | 15 | Punt | 0–0 |
| DET | Q1 3:22 | 6 | 10 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 1:01 | 14 | 80 | Touchdown | 0–7 |
| DET | Q2 8:17 | 5 | 16 | Punt | 0–7 |
| WAS | Q2 5:55 | 7 | 84 | Touchdown | 0–14 |
| DET | Q2 1:56 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 0–14 |
| WAS | Q2 1:22 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 0–14 |
| DET | Q2 0:15 | 1 | 2 | End of half | 0–14 |
| DET | Q3 15:00 | 5 | 17 | Punt | 0–14 |
| WAS | Q3 12:24 | 9 | 45 | Missed field goal | 0–14 |
| DET | Q3 6:52 | 8 | 31 | Field goal | 3–14 |
| WAS | Q3 2:27 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 3–14 |
| DET | Q3 1:10 | 2 | -8 | Safety | 3–16 |
| WAS | Q3 0:28 | 5 | 49 | Turnover | 3–16 |
| DET | Q4 13:43 | 5 | 26 | Punt | 3–16 |
| WAS | Q4 10:54 | 1 | 8 | Touchdown | 3–24 |
| DET | Q4 10:47 | 8 | 19 | Turnover | 3–24 |
| WAS | Q4 6:46 | 5 | 19 | Field goal | 3–27 |
| DET | Q4 3:06 | 6 | 19 | Opp touchdown | 3–34 |
| DET | Q4 0:45 | 2 | -1 | End of half | 3–34 |
Box score
Individual performances
Lions
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Kitna | 16/29 | 106 | 0 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kevin Jones | 11 | 48 | 4.4 | 0 |
| Tatum Bell | 4 | 15 | 3.8 | 0 |
| Jon Kitna | 4 | 3 | 0.8 | 0 |
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Campbell | 23/29 | 248 | 2 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton Portis | 18 | 72 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Mike Sellers | 5 | 24 | 4.8 | 1 |
| Ladell Betts | 8 | 22 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Rock Cartwright | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Jason Campbell | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 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 Commanders; negative favour Lions.
Half-point at risk
2.54%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
63.7%
Expected total
43.9est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+2.38
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+5.50