Georgia

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.3398th
  Defense−0.0188th
• 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.
  Offense52.0%97th
  Defense42.1%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2360th
  Defense+1.0099th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2290th
  Defense+0.0177th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5098th
  Defense+0.0381st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.8%95th
  Defense46.4%59th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense44.6%98th
  Defense32.5%53rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3089th
  Defense2.7471st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.5%64th
  Defense20.0%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.0%84th
  Defense15.8%41st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2018

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
   APSU
2. W
   SC
3. W
   MTSU
4. W
   MIZ
5. W
   TENN
6. W
   VAN
7. L
   LSU
8. W
   FLA
9. W
   UK
10. W
    AUB
11. W
    MASS
12. W
    GT
13. L
    ALA
14. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Georgia.

Players, 2018

1. Jake FrommQB252 plays · +0.289 pts/play · 60th of 225 QBs
   1.36WAR0.96 to 1.79
2. Elijah Holyfield?108 plays · +0.216 pts/play
   0.44WAR0.36 to 0.51
3. D'Andre SwiftRB137 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 94th of 351 RBs
   0.39WAR0.28 to 0.49
4. Riley RidleyWR45 plays · +0.121 pts/play · 180th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Rodrigo BlankenshipPK14 plays · +0.379 pts/play · 57th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.13
6. Mecole HardmanWR38 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 219th of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Terry GodwinWR19 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 285th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.08
8. Isaac NautaTE23 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 45th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9649643rd of 130Roster talent: 964, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2972973rd of 130Recruiting: 297, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%68th of 129Returning production: 63%, 68th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +32.9+32.92nd of 130SP+ rating: +32.9, 2nd 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, 2018

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.20 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 FLAQ3 0:07 4th & 1 at FLA 1, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.4 pts
2. vs ALAQ3 0:11 4th & 2 at UGA 47, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. vs ALAQ3 4:31 4th & 1 at UGA 12, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs FLAQ2 3:59 4th & 1 at UGA 20, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs AUBQ3 3:52 4th & 4 at AUB 39, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs ALAQ4 12:27 4th & 4 at ALA 48, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. vs AUBQ2 11:13 4th & 2 at AUB 2, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs ALAQ4 3:04 4th & 11 at midfield, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

84th of 130 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

   APSU
2. W

   SC
3. W

   MTSU
4. W

   MIZ
5. W

   TENN
6. W

   VAN
7. L

   LSU
8. W

   FLA
9. W

   UK
10. W

    AUB
11. W

    MASS
12. W

    GT
13. L

    ALA
14. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2018

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+0.17
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.64

Game by game

• APSUW 45-0 vs APSU100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SCW 41-17 at SC74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• MTSUW 49-7 vs MTSU98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MIZW 43-29 at MIZ86% → 98%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +23, Clock +1
• TENNW 38-12 vs TENN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• VANW 41-13 vs VAN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• LSUL 16-36 at LSU77% → 0%Before kickoff +27 · On the field −77: Scoreboard −61, Clock +1
• FLAW 36-17 vs FLA72% → 99%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• UKW 34-17 at UK81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• AUBW 27-10 vs AUB83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• MASSW 66-27 vs MASS99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• GTW 45-21 vs GT89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +14
• ALAL 28-35 vs ALA22% → 12%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• TEXL 21-28 vs TEX82% → 4%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −56, Clock −4

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.