Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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.
  Offense0.009th
  Defense+0.1245th
• 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.
  Offense38.5%9th
  Defense45.8%23rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1732nd
  Defense+1.1087th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0123rd
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.0013th
  Defense+0.1846th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%10th
  Defense52.6%11th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.7%17th
  Defense29.1%88th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8738th
  Defense3.1125th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%40th
  Defense18.4%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%45th
  Defense12.7%8th

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, 2016

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. L
   UALB
2. L
   NEV
3. W
   ARMY
4. L
   BC
5. L
   KENT
6. L
   BALL
7. L
   NIU
8. W
   AKR
9. L
   OHIO
10. L
    M-OH
11. L
    WMU
12. L
    BGSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2016

1. Tyree JacksonQB307 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 99th of 218 QBs
   0.82WAR0.33 to 1.30
2. Jordan JohnsonRB147 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 103rd of 347 RBs
   0.34WAR0.18 to 0.51
3. Grant RohachQB42 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 178th of 218 QBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
4. Johnathan HawkinsRB65 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 226th of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
5. Marcus McGillWR41 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 199th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16
6. Malcolm RobinsonWR30 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 349th of 417 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
7. Adam MitchesonPK13 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 106th of 116 kickers
   0.03WAR−0.01 to 0.08
8. Mason SchreckTE60 plays · +0.011 pts/play · 71st of 195 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.10 to 0.12

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

What it had and what it did, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  344344116th of 128Roster talent: 344, 116th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  106106114th of 128Recruiting: 106, 114th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%125th of 128Returning production: 22%, 125th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.8−18.8124th of 128SP+ rating: −18.8, 124th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.11 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. vs UALBQ4 4:01 4th & 6 at UALB 8, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.6 pts
2. vs UALBQ4 14:47 4th & 1 at BUF 42, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs BALLQ2 10:32 4th & 1 at BALL 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs BALLQ2 5:17 4th & 3 at BALL 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. vs M-OHQ2 2:41 4th & 2 at midfield, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs M-OHQ2 10:03 4th & 10 at M-OH 22, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at NIUQ2 1:17 4th & 7 at NIU 28, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UALBQ2 10:53 4th & 3 at UALB 15, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

90th 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. L

   UALB
2. L

   NEV
3. W

   ARMY
4. L

   BC
5. L

   KENT
6. L

   BALL
7. L

   NIU
8. W

   AKR
9. L

   OHIO
10. L

    M-OH
11. L

    WMU
12. L

    BGSU

What moved it, 2016

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−1.52
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.24
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.00

Game by game

• UALBL 16-22 vs UALB93% → 8%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −48, Possession & field position −1
• NEVL 14-38 at NEV23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• ARMYW 23-20 vs ARMY12% → 83%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +71: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts −22
• BCL 3-35 at BC7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• KENTL 20-44 vs KENT51% → 1%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −53, Clock −2
• BALLL 21-31 vs BALL21% → 3%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• NIUL 7-44 at NIU8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• AKRW 41-20 vs AKR16% → 99%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +84: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts +1
• OHIOL 10-34 at OHIO10% → 1%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• M-OHL 24-35 vs M-OH17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −27, Clock −2
• WMUL 0-38 at WMU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• BGSUL 19-27 at BGSU22% → 9%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −24, Possession & field position +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.