Closing spread
TEN -3.5
Total
39.5
Model margin
+3.8est.
TEN perspective
Push chance
None
half-point line — cannot push
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.
- -0.015EPA / play-0.066
- 45.4%Success rate42.4%
- +0.012EPA / dropback-0.003
- -0.052EPA / rush-0.139
- 7.5%Explosive rate7.0%
- +3.67CPOE+1.31
- 44.5%Third-down rate41.4%
- 65.4%Red-zone TD rate48.8%
- 1.85Points / drive1.43
- 3.7%Turnover rate3.0%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOU | Q1 15:00 | 9 | 74 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| TEN | Q1 10:23 | 13 | 67 | Touchdown | 7–7 |
| HOU | Q1 4:03 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 7–7 |
| TEN | Q1 2:54 | 3 | 11 | Punt | 7–7 |
| HOU | Q1 0:48 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 7–7 |
| TEN | Q2 14:36 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 7–7 |
| HOU | Q2 13:41 | 8 | 35 | Punt | 7–7 |
| TEN | Q2 8:34 | 4 | 30 | Punt | 7–7 |
| HOU | Q2 6:22 | 9 | 59 | Field goal | 10–7 |
| TEN | Q2 1:04 | 5 | 42 | Missed field goal | 10–7 |
| TEN | Q3 15:00 | 5 | 14 | Punt | 10–7 |
| HOU | Q3 12:48 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 10–7 |
| TEN | Q3 12:04 | 3 | 63 | Touchdown | 10–14 |
| HOU | Q3 11:15 | 6 | 22 | Punt | 10–14 |
| TEN | Q3 7:50 | 12 | 87 | Touchdown | 10–21 |
| HOU | Q3 0:47 | 8 | 75 | Touchdown | 17–21 |
| TEN | Q4 12:14 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 17–21 |
| TEN | Q4 10:40 | 2 | 29 | Touchdown | 17–28 |
| HOU | Q4 9:49 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 17–28 |
| TEN | Q4 8:44 | 2 | 4 | Turnover | 17–28 |
| HOU | Q4 7:59 | 7 | 34 | Field goal | 20–28 |
| TEN | Q4 4:54 | 6 | 23 | Punt | 20–28 |
| HOU | Q4 2:50 | 2 | 0 | Turnover | 20–28 |
| TEN | Q4 2:40 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 20–28 |
| HOU | Q4 0:17 | 2 | 3 | End of half | 20–28 |
Box score
Individual performances
Texans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sage Rosenfels | 17/30 | 185 | 1 | 1 |
| Matt Schaub | 3/5 | 34 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ron Dayne | 18 | 86 | 4.8 | 1 |
| Sage Rosenfels | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 0 |
| Adimchinobe Echemandu | 5 | 8 | 1.6 | 0 |
Titans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vince Young | 21/31 | 248 | 2 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LenDale White | 12 | 60 | 5.0 | 1 |
| Chris Brown | 11 | 46 | 4.2 | 1 |
| Vince Young | 5 | 44 | 8.8 | 0 |
| Chris Barclay | 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
2.55%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
59.2%
Expected total
45.2est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+1.23
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+3.80