Washington

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+0.0838th
  Defense−0.0391st
• 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.
  Offense43.5%52nd
  Defense40.8%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2052nd
  Defense+1.0695th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0228th
  Defense−0.1398th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1345th
  Defense+0.1061st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.0%31st
  Defense46.4%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.2%80th
  Defense28.7%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7024th
  Defense2.4989th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%65th
  Defense21.1%62nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.7%72nd
  Defense2.0%54th

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 Washington 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
   BOIS
2. W
   SAC
3. W
   USU
4. L
   CAL
5. W
   USC
6. L
   ORE
7. L
   STAN
8. W
   ARIZ
9. L
   UTAH
10. L
    ASU
11. W
    ORST
12. W
    WSU
13. W
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2015

1. Jake BrowningQB372 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 71st of 205 QBs
   1.34WAR0.80 to 1.89
2. Myles Gaskin?184 plays · +0.153 pts/play
   0.53WAR0.34 to 0.69
3. Jaydon MickensWR90 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 86th of 411 WRs
   0.20WAR0.07 to 0.34
4. Cameron Van WinklePK18 plays · +0.451 pts/play · 29th of 115 kickers
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
5. Dwayne Washington?63 plays · +0.097 pts/play
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.17
6. Dante PettisWR46 plays · +0.109 pts/play · 225th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.15
7. Brayden LeniusWR28 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 249th of 411 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
8. Korey DurkeeP43 plays · +0.070 pts/play · 66th of 92 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.10

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 Washington'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.
  66766729th of 128Roster talent: 667, 29th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20720731st of 128Recruiting: 207, 31st of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  48%48%90th of 127Returning production: 48%, 90th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.7+9.740th of 128SP+ rating: +9.7, 40th 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 Washington's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.16 of the 0.24 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 USCQ4 6:59 4th & 1 at WASH 36, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. at BOISQ4 5:18 4th & 1 at WASH 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.8 pts
3. vs OREQ3 4:32 4th & 1 at WASH 28, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. at USCQ3 12:10 4th & 1 at WASH 41, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at USCQ3 2:13 4th & 6 at USC 42, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. at USMQ4 14:15 4th & 3 at USM 4, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at BOISQ4 11:52 4th & 6 at WASH 49, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs WSUQ2 5:50 4th & 2 at WSU 6, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

58th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. L

   BOIS
2. W

   SAC
3. W

   USU
4. L

   CAL
5. W

   USC
6. L

   ORE
7. L

   STAN
8. W

   ARIZ
9. L

   UTAH
10. L

    ASU
11. W

    ORST
12. W

    WSU
13. W

    USM

What moved it, 2015

Every game starts at Washington'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+0.04
• Clock−0.04
• Timeouts−0.04
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.42

Game by game

• BOISL 13-16 at BOIS26% → 4%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −2
• SACW 49-0 vs SAC97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• USUW 31-17 vs USU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +1
• CALL 24-30 vs CAL39% → 4%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• USCW 17-12 at USC10% → 95%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +86: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• OREL 20-26 vs ORE55% → 5%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −50: Scoreboard −50, Clock −3
• STANL 14-31 at STAN11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −17
• ARIZW 49-3 vs ARIZ62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39
• UTAHL 23-34 vs UTAH55% → 3%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• ASUL 17-27 at ASU37% → 3%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −34: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 52-7 at ORST86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• WSUW 45-10 vs WSU64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36
• USMW 44-31 at USM70% → 98%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1

Points of win probability, from Washington's side.

Closest call

WASH 37-34 ORE (2022) - Washington dropped to a 6.2% win probability before pulling it out.