Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2481st
  Defense+0.2021st
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.9%57th
  Defense39.0%84th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2984th
  Defense+1.441st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1363rd
  Defense+0.1430th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3785th
  Defense+0.3017th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.2%45th
  Defense42.5%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.7%66th
  Defense31.4%60th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9349th
  Defense2.7365th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%24th
  Defense20.2%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.3%30th
  Defense1.3%7th

Percentiles among the 128 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2014

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Buffalo allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   DUQ
2. L
   ARMY
3. L
   BAY
4. W
   NORF
5. W
   M-OH
6. L
   BGSU
7. L
   EMU
8. L
   CMU
9. L
   OHIO
10. W
    AKR
11. W
    MASS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2014

1. Joe LicataQB233 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 103rd of 199 QBs
   1.00WAR0.61 to 1.38
2. Anthone TaylorRB197 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 38th of 350 RBs
   0.40WAR0.25 to 0.56
3. Ron WilloughbyWR48 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 117th of 469 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.22
4. Jacob MartinezWR32 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 242nd of 469 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
5. Devon HughesWR37 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 307th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10
6. Marcus McGillWR14 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 329th of 469 WRs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
7. Jordan JohnsonRB21 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 269th of 350 RBs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.05
8. Matt WeiserTE11 plays · +0.036 pts/play · 14th of 212 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.02 to 0.03

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Buffalo's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Buffalo's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.18 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at BGSUQ4 3:04 4th & 2 at BGSU 16, up 5Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. at EMUQ3 6:49 4th & 1 at BUF 11, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at OHIOQ2 4:56 4th & 4 at OHIO 42, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
4. vs CMUQ4 8:08 4th & 13 at CMU 35, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
5. vs CMUQ2 10:35 4th & 1 at BUF 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
6. at BGSUQ3 6:51 4th & 1 at BUF 24, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at BGSUQ4 2:11 4th & 8 at BGSU 46, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. at OHIOQ1 3:35 4th & 2 at OHIO 40, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

101st of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Buffalo's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   DUQ
2. L

   ARMY
3. L

   BAY
4. W

   NORF
5. W

   M-OH
6. L

   BGSU
7. L

   EMU
8. L

   CMU
9. L

   OHIO
10. W

    AKR
11. W

    MASS

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Buffalo's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.47
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.44

Game by game

• DUQW 38-28 vs DUQ96% → 95%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position −1
• ARMYL 39-47 at ARMY50% → 2%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −2
• BAYL 21-63 vs BAY3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −6
• NORFW 36-7 vs NORF95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• M-OHW 35-27 vs M-OH66% → 97%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +2
• BGSUL 35-36 at BGSU39% → 18%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −18, Possession & field position −2
• EMUL 27-37 at EMU83% → 3%Before kickoff +33 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• CMUL 14-20 vs CMU44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• OHIOL 14-37 at OHIO48% → 0%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• AKRW 55-24 vs AKR42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +52
• MASSW 41-21 at MASS52% → 99%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from Buffalo's side.

Closest call

BALL 48-51 BUF (2024) - Buffalo dropped to a 6.3% win probability before pulling it out.