Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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−0.062nd
  Defense+0.0764th
• 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.
  Offense38.6%19th
  Defense39.1%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1717th
  Defense+1.3031st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0119th
  Defense+0.0755th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.004th
  Defense+0.2056th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.8%15th
  Defense44.1%77th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.7%23rd
  Defense29.9%54th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8720th
  Defense2.7984th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.2%37th
  Defense20.8%86th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.6%44th
  Defense17.0%59th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   WIS
2. L
   FOR
3. L
   LIB
4. L
   UL
5. W
   AKR
6. W
   CMU
7. L
   BGSU
8. W
   KENT
9. L
   TOL
10. L
    OHIO
11. L
    M-OH
12. L
    EMU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2023

1. Cole SnyderQB277 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 93rd of 250 QBs
   0.94WAR0.35 to 1.67
2. CJ OgbonnaQB64 plays · +0.297 pts/play · 148th of 250 QBs
   0.36WAR0.20 to 0.50
3. Ron Cook Jr.RB143 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 102nd of 383 RBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.37
4. Anthony VenneriP44 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 6th of 103 punters
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.27
5. Mike Washington Jr.RB75 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 169th of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.11 to 0.23
6. Alex McNultyPK16 plays · +0.337 pts/play · 33rd of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.14
7. Boobie CurryWR36 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 240th of 457 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.01 to 0.16
8. Marlyn JohnsonWR36 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 286th of 457 WRs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.11

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  296296127th of 130Roster talent: 296, 127th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014092nd of 130Recruiting: 140, 92nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%56th of 128Returning production: 57%, 56th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.2−15.2116th of 130SP+ rating: −15.2, 116th 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, 2023

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.10 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 KENTQ3 5:43 4th & 3 at midfield, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. vs BGSUQ2 0:03 4th & 3 at BGSU 32, down 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at AKRQ4 8:24 4th & 5 at midfield, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs CMUQ1 3:10 4th & 1 at CMU 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs LIBQ3 1:28 4th & 4 at BUF 31, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs BGSUQ4 8:08 4th & 10 at midfield, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at WISQ3 12:21 4th & 2 at BUF 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs EMUQ4 12:32 4th & 6 at BUF 24, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

132nd of 133 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

   WIS
2. L

   FOR
3. L

   LIB
4. L

   UL
5. W

   AKR
6. W

   CMU
7. L

   BGSU
8. W

   KENT
9. L

   TOL
10. L

    OHIO
11. L

    M-OH
12. L

    EMU

What moved it, 2023

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−2.01
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.24
• Timeouts+0.22
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.12

Game by game

• WISL 17-38 at WIS7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11
• FORL 37-40 vs FOR93% → 31%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• LIBL 27-55 vs LIB46% → 0%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48, Clock −1
• ULL 38-45 at UL23% → 2%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −26
• AKRW 13-10 at AKR43% → 76%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +20
• CMUW 37-13 vs CMU47% → 99%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• BGSUL 14-24 vs BGSU65% → 2%Before kickoff +15 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2
• KENTW 24-6 at KENT75% → 99%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• TOLL 13-31 at TOL16% → 1%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +1
• OHIOL 10-20 vs OHIO26% → 5%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• M-OHL 10-23 at M-OH30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• EMUL 11-24 vs EMU68% → 3%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −65: Scoreboard −58, Clock −3

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.