Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1768th
  Defense−0.0190th
• 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.
  Offense45.8%71st
  Defense39.1%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1217th
  Defense+1.1571st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1885th
  Defense0.0068th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1434th
  Defense0.0093rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.1%69th
  Defense45.6%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.7%54th
  Defense24.2%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1479th
  Defense2.6676th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.8%75th
  Defense18.8%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.3%91st
  Defense21.1%63rd

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, 2019

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
   RMU
2. L
   PSU
3. L
   LIB
4. W
   TEM
5. L
   M-OH
6. L
   OHIO
7. W
   AKR
8. W
   CMU
9. W
   EMU
10. L
    KENT
11. W
    TOL
12. W
    BGSU
13. W
    CLT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2019

1. Jaret PattersonRB240 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 2nd of 349 RBs
   1.09WAR0.89 to 1.28
2. Kyle VantreaseQB171 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 106th of 228 QBs
   0.66WAR0.41 to 0.95
3. Kevin MarksRB165 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 64th of 349 RBs
   0.49WAR0.34 to 0.63
4. Matt MyersQB82 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 181st of 228 QBs
   0.19WAR0.05 to 0.34
5. Antonio NunnWR74 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 216th of 439 WRs
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.18
6. Zac LefebvreTE22 plays · +0.055 pts/play · 84th of 207 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.06
7. Ron Cook Jr.RB9 plays · +0.012 pts/play · 320th of 349 RBs
   0.00WAR−0.01 to 0.01

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  285285126th of 130Roster talent: 285, 126th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109125th of 130Recruiting: 109, 125th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  17%17%126th of 130Returning production: 17%, 126th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −2.0−2.071st of 130SP+ rating: −2.0, 71st of 130 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, 2019

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.22 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 OHIOQ4 1:22 4th & 1 at OHIO 29, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−8.3 pts
2. at KENTQ4 2:15 4th & 3 at BUF 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.5 pts
3. at EMUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at BUF 48, up 22Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
4. at M-OHQ4 11:24 4th & 6 at M-OH 13, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
5. at AKRQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at AKR 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. at AKRQ2 2:55 4th & 3 at midfield, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs TEMQ3 14:08 4th & 2 at BUF 11, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. at AKRQ4 12:40 4th & 4 at AKR 46, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

51st 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. W

   RMU
2. L

   PSU
3. L

   LIB
4. W

   TEM
5. L

   M-OH
6. L

   OHIO
7. W

   AKR
8. W

   CMU
9. W

   EMU
10. L

    KENT
11. W

    TOL
12. W

    BGSU
13. W

    CLT

What moved it, 2019

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+0.79
• Possession & field position−0.06
• Clock+0.14
• Timeouts−0.13
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.11

Game by game

• RMUW 38-10 vs RMU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• PSUL 13-45 at PSU2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• LIBL 17-35 at LIB59% → 1%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −47, Possession & field position −1
• TEMW 38-22 vs TEM16% → 99%Before kickoff −34 · On the field +83: Scoreboard +52, Timeouts +3
• M-OHL 20-34 at M-OH57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −43, Timeouts −2
• OHIOL 20-21 vs OHIO40% → 11%Before kickoff −10 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −16
• AKRW 21-0 at AKR84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +24, Clock +1
• CMUW 43-20 vs CMU56% → 100%Before kickoff +6 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +1
• EMUW 43-14 at EMU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• KENTL 27-30 at KENT59% → 4%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −40, Possession & field position −1
• TOLW 49-30 vs TOL71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• BGSUW 49-7 vs BGSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• CLTW 31-9 at CLT63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +43, 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.