2009 · Week 14
Final
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum · outdoors · grass · 52°F · wind 9mph
Closing spread
WAS -1
Total
37.5
Model margin
+3.4est.
OAK perspective
Push chance
2.1%est.
Availability
The injury report
The official league filing for this week — game designations first, then who missed or was limited in practice.
Commanders
- OutAlbert HaynesworthDTAnkle· Out (Definitely Will Not Play)
- OutDeAngelo HallCBKnee· Out (Definitely Will Not Play)
- OutMike SellersRBThigh· Out (Definitely Will Not Play)
- QuestionableCornelius GriffinDTKnee· Limited
- QuestionablePhillip DanielsDEKnee· Limited
- QuestionableStephon HeyerTKnee· Limited
- ProbableEdwin WilliamsGIllness· Full
- ProbableJustin TryonCBHip· Full
Raiders
- OutNick MillerWRShin· DNP
- OutRobert GalleryGBack· DNP
- DoubtfulDarrius Heyward-BeyWRFoot· DNP
- QuestionableGreg EllisDEKnee· Limited
- QuestionableSamson SateleCCalf· Limited
- ProbableDesmond BryantDTBack· Full
Win probability
- Raiders
- 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.
The rivalry
WAS lead 5–1 since 1999
WAS have won 5 straight. Meetings average 41.3 points. OAK are 1-5 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–OAK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LV | Q1 15:00 | 5 | 21 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 11:46 | 3 | -1 | Punt | 0–0 |
| LV | Q1 9:45 | 7 | 7 | Punt | 0–0 |
| WAS | Q1 6:26 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 0–0 |
| LV | Q1 5:33 | 4 | 51 | Field goal | 0–3 |
| WAS | Q1 4:12 | 8 | 72 | Touchdown | 7–3 |
| LV | Q1 0:13 | 8 | 57 | Touchdown | 7–10 |
| WAS | Q2 11:14 | 7 | 37 | Field goal | 10–10 |
| LV | Q2 7:27 | 3 | 9 | Punt | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q2 5:26 | 4 | 9 | Punt | 10–10 |
| LV | Q2 4:16 | 6 | 5 | Punt | 10–10 |
| WAS | Q2 1:48 | 4 | 60 | Touchdown | 17–10 |
| LV | Q2 0:56 | 7 | 38 | Missed field goal | 17–10 |
| WAS | Q3 15:00 | 5 | -12 | Punt | 17–10 |
| LV | Q3 13:39 | 8 | 20 | Field goal | 17–13 |
| WAS | Q3 8:49 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 17–13 |
| LV | Q3 7:23 | 9 | 8 | Punt | 17–13 |
| WAS | Q3 2:23 | 14 | 65 | Touchdown | 24–13 |
| LV | Q4 11:22 | 1 | 0 | Turnover | 24–13 |
| WAS | Q4 11:14 | 4 | 41 | Touchdown | 31–13 |
| LV | Q4 9:42 | 3 | -4 | Punt | 31–13 |
| LV | Q4 7:45 | 4 | -6 | Turnover on downs | 31–13 |
| WAS | Q4 6:48 | 6 | 21 | Field goal | 34–13 |
| LV | Q4 2:47 | 5 | 21 | Turnover on downs | 34–13 |
| WAS | Q4 0:50 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 34–13 |
Box score
Individual performances
Commanders
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Campbell | 16/28 | 222 | 2 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quinton Ganther | 14 | 50 | 3.6 | 2 |
| Marcus Mason | 6 | 32 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Jason Campbell | 4 | 20 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Santana Moss | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Rock Cartwright | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Devin Thomas | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 |
Receiving
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santana Moss | 4 | 8 | 58 | 0 |
| Fred Davis | 3 | 4 | 50 | 2 |
| Quinton Ganther | 3 | 3 | 43 | 0 |
| Devin Thomas | 2 | 5 | 38 | 0 |
| Malcolm Kelly | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
| Marcus Mason | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 |
| Rock Cartwright | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 |
| Antwaan Randle El | 1 | 3 | 6 | 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 Raiders; negative favour Commanders.
Half-point at risk
2.06%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
58.2%
Expected total
44.5est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+0.91
- Home-field advantage+2.49
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+3.40
One or both ratings are carry-over priors — no games have been played this season yet, so treat this as a starting assumption rather than a read.