Closing spread
BUF -7
Total
42
Model margin
+2.3est.
OAK perspective
Push chance
4.0%est.
the line sits on a key number
Availability
The injury report
The official league filing for this week — game designations first, then who missed or was limited in practice.
Bills
- QuestionableChris GraggTEKnee· Limited
- DNPScott ChandlerTEIllness
- ProbableDa'Norris SearcySHamstring· Limited
- ProbableDan CarpenterKright Groin· Limited
- ProbableDuke WilliamsSConcussion· Limited
- ProbableJarius WynnDEKnee· Limited
- ProbableMarcus ThigpenWRFoot· Limited
- ProbableStephon GilmoreCBShoulder· Limited
- ProbableAnthony DixonRBChest· Full
Raiders
- OutBrian LeonhardtTEConcussion· DNP
- OutChimdi ChekwaCBHamstring· DNP
- OutDenarius MooreWRKnee· DNP
- OutMenelik WatsonTFoot· DNP
- OutTarell BrownCBFoot· DNP
- OutVincent BrownWRGroin· DNP
- QuestionableC.J. WilsonDEKnee· Full
- QuestionableD.J. HaydenCBBack· Limited
- ProbableDerek CarrQBright Thumb· Full
- ProbableT.J. CarrieCBAnkle· Full
Win probability
- Raiders
- Bills
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
All square 6–6 since 1999
BUF have won 4 straight. Meetings average 53 points. OAK are 8-4 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 | BUF–OAK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LV | Q1 15:00 | 3 | 6 | Punt | 0–0 |
| BUF | Q1 14:14 | 8 | 65 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| LV | Q1 9:45 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 7–0 |
| BUF | Q1 8:40 | 6 | 16 | Turnover | 7–0 |
| LV | Q1 5:26 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 7–0 |
| BUF | Q1 4:01 | 3 | 5 | Punt | 7–0 |
| LV | Q1 2:27 | 6 | 64 | Touchdown | 7–7 |
| BUF | Q2 14:56 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 7–7 |
| LV | Q2 13:32 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 7–7 |
| BUF | Q2 12:52 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 7–7 |
| LV | Q2 12:11 | 7 | 31 | Field goal | 7–10 |
| BUF | Q2 8:09 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 7–10 |
| LV | Q2 7:22 | 3 | -2 | Punt | 7–10 |
| BUF | Q2 5:45 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 7–10 |
| LV | Q2 4:16 | 7 | 41 | Field goal | 7–13 |
| BUF | Q2 1:11 | 7 | 41 | Field goal | 10–13 |
| BUF | Q3 15:00 | 3 | -6 | Punt | 10–13 |
| LV | Q3 13:12 | 6 | 45 | Field goal | 10–16 |
| BUF | Q3 10:18 | 5 | 13 | Punt | 10–16 |
| LV | Q3 8:25 | 11 | 53 | Field goal | 10–19 |
| BUF | Q3 2:36 | 9 | 88 | Touchdown | 17–19 |
| LV | Q4 14:54 | 4 | 19 | Punt | 17–19 |
| BUF | Q4 11:59 | 7 | 32 | Punt | 17–19 |
| LV | Q4 8:13 | 11 | 90 | Touchdown | 17–26 |
| BUF | Q4 2:51 | 3 | -11 | Turnover | 17–26 |
| LV | Q4 2:22 | 3 | -3 | Missed field goal | 17–26 |
| BUF | Q4 1:55 | 5 | 67 | Touchdown | 24–26 |
| LV | Q4 1:09 | 0 | 0 | End of half | 24–26 |
Box score
Individual performances
Bills
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyle Orton | 32/49 | 329 | 3 | 2 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fred Jackson | 6 | 10 | 1.7 | 0 |
| Anthony Dixon | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 0 |
| C.J. Spiller | 4 | -4 | -1.0 | 0 |
Receiving
| Player | Rec | Tgt | Yds | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fred Jackson | 9 | 12 | 93 | 0 |
| Sammy Watkins | 3 | 7 | 75 | 1 |
| Robert Woods | 7 | 9 | 52 | 1 |
| Chris Hogan | 3 | 9 | 43 | 0 |
| Scott Chandler | 4 | 6 | 37 | 1 |
| MarQueis Gray | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 |
| C.J. Spiller | 4 | 4 | 14 | 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 Bills.
Half-point at risk
4.02%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
55.2%
Expected total
43.2est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)-0.19
- Home-field advantage+2.49
- Quarterback adjustment0.00
- Rest differential0.00
- Expected margin+2.30
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.