Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0838th
  Defense+0.0955th
• 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.
  Offense42.8%52nd
  Defense39.9%70th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1723rd
  Defense+1.398th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0226th
  Defense+0.0175th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2556th
  Defense+0.2535th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%40th
  Defense45.4%70th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.4%76th
  Defense29.5%59th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9120th
  Defense2.9957th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.7%75th
  Defense20.1%77th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%20th
  Defense20.0%91st

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   MD
2. L
   HC
3. L
   CCU
4. W
   EMU
5. W
   M-OH
6. W
   BGSU
7. W
   MASS
8. W
   TOL
9. L
   OHIO
10. L
    CMU
11. L
    KENT
12. W
    AKR
13. W
    GASO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2022

1. Cole SnyderQB422 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 47th of 234 QBs
   1.44WAR0.66 to 2.35
2. Mike Washington Jr.RB101 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 95th of 384 RBs
   0.30WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Justin MarshallWR65 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 108th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.27
4. Ron Cook Jr.RB111 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 217th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.02 to 0.25
5. Alex McNultyPK20 plays · +0.351 pts/play · 9th of 110 kickers
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
6. Matt MyersQB19 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 200th of 234 QBs
   0.09WAR0.01 to 0.17
7. Quian WilliamsWR51 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 241st of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.18
8. Jamari GassettWR17 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 370th of 455 WRs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.07

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  371371116th of 129Roster talent: 371, 116th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  134134100th of 129Recruiting: 134, 100th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%99th of 128Returning production: 34%, 99th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.2−9.295th of 129SP+ rating: −9.2, 95th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.24 of the 0.27 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 KENTQ4 2:07 4th & 3 at KENT 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−6.8 pts
2. at CCUQ4 14:15 4th & 8 at BUF 34, up 2Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.8 pts
3. vs HCQ4 3:26 4th & 9 at HC 35, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.7 pts
4. vs AKRQ3 1:05 4th & 2 at AKR 46, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
5. vs GASOQ4 8:38 4th & 2 at GASO 2, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
6. at CCUQ4 5:36 4th & 8 at CCU 10, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
7. vs KENTQ4 2:07 4th & 1 at KENT 14, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at CMUQ4 9:42 4th & 8 at CMU 36, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

36th of 131 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

   MD
2. L

   HC
3. L

   CCU
4. W

   EMU
5. W

   M-OH
6. W

   BGSU
7. W

   MASS
8. W

   TOL
9. L

   OHIO
10. L

    CMU
11. L

    KENT
12. W

    AKR
13. W

    GASO

What moved it, 2022

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−0.20
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Timeouts+0.06
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.24

Game by game

• MDL 10-31 at MD5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −10
• HCL 31-37 vs HC65% → 6%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −53, Clock −4
• CCUL 26-38 at CCU19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts −1
• EMUW 50-31 at EMU34% → 100%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +57, Timeouts +4
• M-OHW 24-20 vs M-OH55% → 77%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +15, Clock +1
• BGSUW 38-7 at BGSU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• MASSW 34-7 at MASS85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• TOLW 34-27 vs TOL32% → 83%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +51: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position −2
• OHIOL 24-45 at OHIO61% → 0%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −53, Clock +1
• CMUL 27-31 at CMU39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• KENTL 27-30 vs KENT62% → 46%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −13, Clock −3
• AKRW 23-22 vs AKR81% → 18%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position −2
• GASOW 23-21 vs GASO34% → 92%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +35, 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.