Georgia

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1463rd
  Defense−0.0493rd
• 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.
  Offense44.2%62nd
  Defense34.8%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1428th
  Defense+1.2523rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0754th
  Defense−0.0487th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2672nd
  Defense−0.0392nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%76th
  Defense40.1%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%29th
  Defense25.7%96th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9259th
  Defense2.7067th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%40th
  Defense21.1%61st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense-
  Defense-

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2015

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 Georgia 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
   ULM
2. W
   VAN
3. W
   SC
4. W
   SOU
5. L
   ALA
6. L
   TENN
7. W
   MIZ
8. L
   FLA
9. W
   UK
10. W
    AUB
11. W
    GASO
12. W
    GT
13. W
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia.

Players, 2015

1. Greyson LambertQB235 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 88th of 205 QBs
   1.06WAR0.61 to 1.43
2. Sony Michel?213 plays · +0.095 pts/play
   0.38WAR0.22 to 0.57
3. Malcolm Mitchell?72 plays · +0.131 pts/play
   0.18WAR0.08 to 0.28
4. Nick Chubb?44 plays · +0.171 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
5. Marshall MorganPK21 plays · +0.344 pts/play · 39th of 115 kickers
   0.14WAR0.07 to 0.21
6. Faton BautaQB34 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 184th of 205 QBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
7. Terry GodwinWR48 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 187th of 411 WRs
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18
8. Collin BarberP28 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 60th of 92 punters
   0.06WAR0.01 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 Georgia'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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8788786th of 128Roster talent: 878, 6th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2782787th of 128Recruiting: 278, 7th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  46%46%94th of 127Returning production: 46%, 94th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.8+16.817th of 128SP+ rating: +16.8, 17th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 Georgia's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 13 clear-cut ones account for 0.26 of the 0.32 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 MIZQ4 5:40 4th & 3 at MIZ 8, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.0 pts
2. at AUBQ3 11:18 4th & 1 at AUB 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
3. vs MIZQ4 1:44 4th & 3 at MIZ 17, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
4. vs MIZQ3 7:51 4th & 2 at MIZ 43, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. at GTQ3 5:55 4th & 2 at GT 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
6. at GTQ4 14:10 4th & 1 at GT 20, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
7. vs GASOQ3 6:40 4th & 2 at UGA 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
8. at GTQ4 6:10 4th & 1 at UGA 30, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

54th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Georgia's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   ULM
2. W

   VAN
3. W

   SC
4. W

   SOU
5. L

   ALA
6. L

   TENN
7. W

   MIZ
8. L

   FLA
9. W

   UK
10. W

    AUB
11. W

    GASO
12. W

    GT
13. W

    PSU

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Georgia'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+0.90
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.91

Game by game

• ULMW 51-14 vs ULM98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• VANW 31-14 at VAN85% → 99%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +25, Clock +1
• SCW 52-20 vs SC86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• SOUW 48-6 vs SOU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• ALAL 10-38 vs ALA53% → 0%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• TENNL 31-38 at TENN51% → 12%Before kickoff +1 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position +2
• MIZW 9-6 vs MIZ86% → 95%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Possession & field position +1
• FLAL 3-27 at FLA44% → 0%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −44: Scoreboard −42, Clock +1
• UKW 27-3 vs UK86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• AUBW 20-13 at AUB58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• GASOW 23-17 vs GASO87% → 86%Before kickoff +37 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts −14
• GTW 13-7 at GT66% → 88%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• PSUW 24-17 vs PSU66% → 90%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1

Points of win probability, from Georgia's side.

Closest call

GT 42-44 UGA (2024) - Georgia dropped to a 4.5% win probability before pulling it out.