Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1233rd
  Defense+0.289th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%56th
  Defense43.5%36th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.146th
  Defense+1.501st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1559th
  Defense+0.287th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2043rd
  Defense+0.3416th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.5%50th
  Defense45.9%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%47th
  Defense38.6%5th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1964th
  Defense3.1040th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.8%94th
  Defense16.1%40th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.2%90th
  Defense17.8%71st

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, 2021

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
   WAG
2. L
   NEB
3. L
   CCU
4. W
   ODU
5. L
   WMU
6. L
   KENT
7. W
   OHIO
8. W
   AKR
9. L
   BGSU
10. L
    M-OH
11. L
    NIU
12. L
    BALL

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2021

1. Kyle VantreaseQB244 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 86th of 219 QBs
   1.13WAR0.63 to 1.64
2. Dylan McDuffieRB207 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 17th of 387 RBs
   0.85WAR0.62 to 1.05
3. Matt MyersQB99 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 150th of 219 QBs
   0.38WAR0.16 to 0.61
4. Kevin MarksRB99 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 131st of 387 RBs
   0.34WAR0.24 to 0.44
5. Ron Cook Jr.RB94 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 222nd of 387 RBs
   0.19WAR0.08 to 0.29
6. Dominic JohnsonWR44 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 110th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.20
7. Quian WilliamsWR63 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 118th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
8. Alex McNultyPK17 plays · +0.232 pts/play · 63rd of 128 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  267267124th of 130Roster talent: 267, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  117117124th of 130Recruiting: 117, 124th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%110th of 128Returning production: 48%, 110th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.5−9.5103rd of 130SP+ rating: −9.5, 103rd 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, 2021

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.06 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 ODUQ4 6:25 4th & 3 at BUF 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
2. vs CCUQ3 6:08 4th & 3 at CCU 18, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs NIUQ4 4:54 4th & 8 at BUF 33, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at NEBQ3 4:16 4th & 4 at BUF 49, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at ODUQ3 5:41 4th & 2 at BUF 48, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. vs CCUQ2 1:03 4th & 5 at CCU 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at AKRQ4 0:00 4th & 1 at AKR 27, up 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs CCUQ2 10:07 4th & 4 at CCU 33, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

115th 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

   WAG
2. L

   NEB
3. L

   CCU
4. W

   ODU
5. L

   WMU
6. L

   KENT
7. W

   OHIO
8. W

   AKR
9. L

   BGSU
10. L

    M-OH
11. L

    NIU
12. L

    BALL

What moved it, 2021

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−1.25
• Clock+0.13
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.08

Game by game

• WAGW 69-7 vs WAG99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• NEBL 3-28 at NEB18% → 2%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22
• CCUL 25-28 vs CCU16% → 6%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• ODUW 35-34 at ODU80% → 58%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −22: Scoreboard +15, Possession & field position +1
• WMUL 17-24 vs WMU29% → 2%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• KENTL 38-48 at KENT29% → 94%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +55, Clock +3
• OHIOW 27-26 vs OHIO65% → 96%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +2
• AKRW 45-10 at AKR81% → 97%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +30, Clock +2
• BGSUL 44-56 vs BGSU82% → 1%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −67, Clock −2
• M-OHL 18-45 at M-OH27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +1
• NIUL 27-33 vs NIU46% → 10%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −18
• BALLL 3-20 at BALL32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1

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.