Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1776th
  Defense+0.1333rd
• 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.
  Offense42.6%46th
  Defense45.2%29th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1740th
  Defense+1.0986th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0130th
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3593rd
  Defense+0.1837th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.9%36th
  Defense49.5%26th
• 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%74th
  Defense34.4%36th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9151st
  Defense3.0924th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%70th
  Defense15.5%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%84th
  Defense12.5%6th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2017

1. Tyree JacksonQB250 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 81st of 226 QBs
   0.94WAR0.55 to 1.37
2. Drew AndersonQB92 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 129th of 226 QBs
   0.45WAR0.30 to 0.61
3. Emmanuel ReedRB186 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 70th of 352 RBs
   0.37WAR0.22 to 0.52
4. Anthony JohnsonWR107 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 15th of 426 WRs
   0.25WAR0.13 to 0.37
5. Theo AndersonRB81 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 143rd of 352 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
6. Kyle VantreaseQB41 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 192nd of 226 QBs
   0.13WAR0.06 to 0.19
7. K.J. OsbornWR45 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 194th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.14
8. Kamathi HolseyWR43 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 240th of 426 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  294294117th of 130Roster talent: 294, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  108108115th of 130Recruiting: 108, 115th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  35%35%105th of 128Returning production: 35%, 105th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.2−11.2105th of 128SP+ rating: −11.2, 105th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.16 of the 0.23 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 AKRQ4 11:14 4th & 1 at BUF 40, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. vs NIUQ3 5:10 4th & 1 at BUF 35, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs OHIOQ2 11:11 4th & 4 at OHIO 36, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
4. vs BGSUQ2 12:19 4th & 1 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs OHIOQ3 6:05 4th & 3 at OHIO 44, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. vs FAUQ3 13:59 4th & 3 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs WMUQ2 7:59 4th & 1 at BUF 42, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs WMUQ3 3:34 4th & 4 at WMU 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

49th of 130 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

   MINN
2. L

   ARMY
3. W

   COLG
4. W

   FAU
5. W

   KENT
6. L

   WMU
7. L

   NIU
8. L

   M-OH
9. L

   AKR
10. W

    BGSU
11. W

    BALL
12. W

    OHIO

What moved it, 2017

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+0.40
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.57

Game by game

• MINNL 7-17 at MINN7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• ARMYL 17-21 at ARMY13% → 10%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• COLGW 33-10 vs COLG94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• FAUW 34-31 vs FAU46% → 90%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• KENTW 27-13 at KENT67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• WMUL 68-71 vs WMU32% → 11%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −15
• NIUL 13-14 vs NIU29% → 20%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −27, Clock −4
• M-OHL 14-24 at M-OH35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −2
• AKRL 20-21 at AKR56% → 20%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −20, Timeouts −3
• BGSUW 38-28 vs BGSU65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• BALLW 40-24 at BALL86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +1
• OHIOW 31-24 vs OHIO32% → 96%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +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.