Week 13 Thanksgiving Day Football: Advanced Reviews

All the advanced stats, visualizations & commentary for Lions-Packers, Cowboys-Chiefs & Bengals-Ravens

The adjusted scores quantify team play quality, with emphasis on stable metrics (success rate) and downplaying higher variance events (turnovers, special team, penalties, fumble luck, etc). Adjusted expected points added (EPA), in conjunction with opportunity-based metrics like total plays and drives, projects adjusted points. Adjusted scores have been tested against actual scores and offer slightly better predictive ability, though their primary benefit is explanatory.

All 2025-2022 and historical Adjusted Scores and other site metrics are available in a downloadable format to paid subscribers via Google Sheet.

Find previous advanced reviews here

** Adjusted Scores table:

• “Pass” - Pass rate over expectation (based on context of each play and historical averages

• “Success” - Success rate on offense, a key metric in adjusted score vs actual

• “H & A” - Home or away team

DET (-2.5) vs GB

The Green Bay Packers were the superior team by offensive success rate (52% to 42%), and the primary driver of victory in this game can be explained by their success on late-downs, while the Detroit Lions continued their awful stretch of fourth down failure.

The traditional stats were nearly equivalent with the Lions and Packers registering 20 and 18 first downs, 60 total plays each, 352 and 359 offensive yards at 5.9 and 6.0 per play. Breaking it down further into phases of offense, both teams averaged 7.8 net yards per pass attempt and 4.0-4.2 yards per carry.

It’s notable that the teams’ run-pass splits were exactly the same by the box, though the Packers turned more dropbacks (pass calls) into scramble runs. The difference is that the Packers were leading for long stretches of the game, which normally leads to less passing, with more dropbacks for the opponents. The game-script differences put the Lions’ 50.7% pass rate at -22.6% over expectation, whereas the Packers’ 57.6% at +2.8%.

The Lions’ over-reliance on the running game hurt them in this game, with designed runs gaining value at only a 29% success rate and with a 15th percentile EPA efficiency (-0.30). Jahmyr Gibbs, one of the most efficient running backs in the NFL, lost 8.0 expected points on his 20 carries (68 yards and one touchdown), weighed down by multiple short-yardage stops, including failures to convert a 4th & 3 (-3.2 EPA), 3rd & 2 (-2.1), 3rd & 3 (-1.4) and 2nd & 1 (-1.1).

In addition to Gibbs losing two yards on a 4th & 3 run, the Lions failed on another fourth down dropback (4th & 3, -3.5 EPA), making their string of losses on fourth down to seven straight attempts, 0-for-2 this week (-6.7 EPA) and 0-for-5 last week (-15.1 EPA) against the Philadelphia Eagles.

The Packers, on the other extreme, not only converted all three of their fourth down conversion attempts, two went for touchdowns and another for a 16-yard gain. Those three plays alone totaled a gain of 9.0 expected points. The Packers also enhanced their EPA efficiency to the 95th percentile with other big plays, including a 51-yard touchdown pass to Christian Watson and a 29-yard gain on the ground for Josh Jacobs on 3rd & 2.

It was an outstanding performance for both quarterbacks, though Jordan Love will deservingly get more credit, not only for the team’s victory and heavier focus by the Packers on the pass game, but for his ability to push the ball down the field with success, averaging 11.4 air yards per attempt, and generating a massive +19.9 EPA without any contribution from receiver YAC. Love has opened up a healthy lead in seasonal EPA efficiency, and I have a feeling his adjusted EPA per play that I calculate next week will have him jumping up and competing for the top spot.

You can’t really argue with what Jared Goff was able to produce, especially after losing his No. 1 receiving option Amon-Ra St. Brown early to injury. It’s a playcaller’s decision, but Lions splitting plays basically 50/50 pass/run, despite trailing and a lack of success on the ground, does reflect somewhat confidence - or lack thereof - in Goff’s ability to lead a comeback against a capable pass rush.

DAL vs KC (-3.5)