Buffalo

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0113th
  Defense+0.0662nd
• 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.
  Offense38.8%20th
  Defense39.1%75th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1927th
  Defense+1.2261st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.074th
  Defense−0.0179th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1129th
  Defense+0.1749th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.0%25th
  Defense44.6%73rd
• 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%21st
  Defense27.6%73rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6816th
  Defense2.9642nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.8%50th
  Defense17.3%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%36th
  Defense15.3%44th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   SFPA
3. W
   KENT
4. L
   TROY
5. L
   CONN
6. W
   EMU
7. W
   MASS
8. L
   AKR
9. W
   BGSU
10. L
    CMU
11. L
    M-OH
12. L
    OHIO

Bars above the line: better than expected for Buffalo.

Players, 2025

1. Ta'Quan RobersonQB388 plays · +0.128 pts/play · 86th of 231 QBs
   0.93WAR0.16 to 1.63
2. Victor SnowWR85 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 13th of 451 WRs
   0.34WAR0.17 to 0.51
3. Al-Jay HendersonRB172 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 59th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.15 to 0.39
4. Nik McMillanWR83 plays · +0.167 pts/play · 35th of 451 WRs
   0.26WAR0.11 to 0.41
5. Dylan DrennanP63 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 15th of 100 punters
   0.09WAR−0.06 to 0.25
6. Jack HowesPK15 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 77th of 112 kickers
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11
7. Terrance Shelton Jr.RB8 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 306th of 365 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03
8. Jasaiah GathingsWR68 plays · +0.003 pts/play · 430th of 451 WRs
   0.00WAR−0.11 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  513513112th of 134Roster talent: 513, 112th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15115185th of 134Recruiting: 151, 85th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  66%66%16th of 132Returning production: 66%, 16th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −7.5−7.593rd of 134SP+ rating: −7.5, 93rd of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.33 of the 0.40 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 CONNQ4 1:04 4th & 5 at CONN 5, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−23.4 pts
2. at KENTQ4 0:18 4th & 1 at KENT 23, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.5 pts
3. at KENTQ4 14:53 4th & 2 at BUF 48, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs AKRQ3 7:17 4th & 3 at AKR 3, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs M-OHQ3 1:11 4th & 2 at BUF 20, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MASSQ4 1:58 4th & 10 at BUF 36, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
7. at BGSUQ2 10:56 4th & 3 at BGSU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at KENTQ3 12:34 4th & 3 at BUF 47, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

128th of 136 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. W

   SFPA
3. W

   KENT
4. L

   TROY
5. L

   CONN
6. W

   EMU
7. W

   MASS
8. L

   AKR
9. W

   BGSU
10. L

    CMU
11. L

    M-OH
12. L

    OHIO

What moved it, 2025

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−1.97
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts−0.38
• Other−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.54

Game by game

• MINNL 10-23 at MINN15% → 1%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• SFPAW 45-6 vs SFPA98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• KENTW 31-28 at KENT95% → 86%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −9: Scoreboard +17, Clock +1
• TROYL 17-21 vs TROY71% → 2%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −23
• CONNL 17-20 vs CONN44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −42: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −21
• EMUW 31-30 vs EMU78% → 59%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −2, Clock +2
• MASSW 28-21 at MASS91% → 98%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +9, Timeouts +8
• AKRL 16-24 vs AKR81% → 3%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −60, Clock −4
• BGSUW 28-3 at BGSU52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +54, Possession & field position −1
• CMUL 19-38 at CMU52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −49, Clock +2
• M-OHL 20-37 vs M-OH52% → 1%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −54, Clock −2
• OHIOL 26-31 vs OHIO35% → 9%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −38, 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.