Georgia

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0731st
  Defense+0.0183rd
• 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.
  Offense42.2%36th
  Defense40.9%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1222nd
  Defense+1.0989th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0542nd
  Defense−0.0180th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1236th
  Defense+0.0584th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.4%33rd
  Defense44.9%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.0%51st
  Defense32.1%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0357th
  Defense2.8559th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.1%25th
  Defense16.9%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.1%49th
  Defense16.9%59th

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, 2016

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
   UNC
2. W
   NICH
3. W
   MIZ
4. L
   MISS
5. L
   TENN
6. W
   SC
7. L
   VAN
8. L
   FLA
9. W
   UK
10. W
    AUB
11. W
    UL
12. L
    GT
13. W
    TCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia.

Players, 2016

1. Jacob EasonQB347 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 84th of 218 QBs
   1.00WAR0.45 to 1.48
2. Nick Chubb?198 plays · +0.180 pts/play
   0.67WAR0.43 to 0.90
3. Sony Michel?159 plays · +0.190 pts/play
   0.57WAR0.41 to 0.73
4. Isaiah McKenzieWR73 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 71st of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.31
5. Rodrigo BlankenshipPK17 plays · +0.376 pts/play · 44th of 116 kickers
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Terry GodwinWR54 plays · +0.064 pts/play · 308th of 417 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.01 to 0.14
7. Isaac NautaTE37 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 9th of 195 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
8. Greyson LambertQB11 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 209th of 218 QBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8728726th of 128Roster talent: 872, 6th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2792796th of 128Recruiting: 279, 6th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%36th of 128Returning production: 78%, 36th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.3+9.342nd of 128SP+ rating: +9.3, 42nd 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, 2016

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 0.24 of the 0.34 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 TENNQ4 6:46 4th & 5 at TENN 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.1 pts
2. at UNCQ4 14:06 4th & 2 at UGA 48, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs VANQ4 6:03 4th & 8 at VAN 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
4. vs VANQ4 2:55 4th & 13 at UGA 27, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.1 pts
5. vs AUBQ4 2:25 4th & 4 at AUB 4, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
6. at UKQ3 5:07 4th & 4 at UK 32, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. at UNCQ2 2:36 4th & 1 at UGA 25, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. at TCUQ2 6:55 4th & 1 at UGA 36, down 9Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

72nd 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

   UNC
2. W

   NICH
3. W

   MIZ
4. L

   MISS
5. L

   TENN
6. W

   SC
7. L

   VAN
8. L

   FLA
9. W

   UK
10. W

    AUB
11. W

    UL
12. L

    GT
13. W

    TCU

What moved it, 2016

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+0.72
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.01
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• UNCW 33-24 at UNC66% → 94%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +42, Clock +3
• NICHW 26-24 vs NICH100% → 93%Before kickoff +50 · On the field −6: Scoreboard +4
• MIZW 28-27 at MIZ70% → 93%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• MISSL 14-45 at MISS34% → 0%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +1
• TENNL 31-34 vs TENN43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• SCW 28-14 at SC75% → 98%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• VANL 16-17 vs VAN87% → 25%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −32, Clock −4
• FLAL 10-24 vs FLA36% → 2%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• UKW 27-24 at UK60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• AUBW 13-7 vs AUB32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +3
• ULW 35-21 vs UL94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11
• GTL 27-28 vs GT66% → 21%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −3
• TCUW 31-23 at TCU54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3

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.