Washington

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+0.3196th
  Defense−0.0695th
• 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.
  Offense52.5%98th
  Defense36.1%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1947th
  Defense+1.2234th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2495th
  Defense−0.0895th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4093rd
  Defense−0.0495th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.9%99th
  Defense38.5%98th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.9%81st
  Defense31.6%72nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3695th
  Defense2.6679th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense14.6%94th
  Defense20.1%57th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.0%81st
  Defense18.1%76th

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 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. W
   RUTG
2. W
   IDHO
3. W
   PRST
4. W
   ARIZ
5. W
   STAN
6. W
   ORE
7. W
   ORST
8. W
   UTAH
9. W
   CAL
10. L
    USC
11. W
    ASU
12. W
    WSU
13. W
    COLO
14. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2016

1. Jake BrowningQB260 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 92nd of 218 QBs
   0.91WAR0.47 to 1.32
2. Myles Gaskin?143 plays · +0.215 pts/play
   0.58WAR0.40 to 0.74
3. Lavon Coleman?56 plays · +0.218 pts/play
   0.23WAR0.16 to 0.30
4. John RossWR75 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 74th of 417 WRs
   0.20WAR0.08 to 0.30
5. Dante PettisWR34 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 231st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.14
6. Chico McClatcherWR38 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 241st of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13
7. Cameron Van WinklePK10 plays · +0.388 pts/play · 83rd of 116 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.11
8. Darrell DanielsTE14 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 53rd of 195 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 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 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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70070024th of 128Roster talent: 700, 24th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  20820829th of 128Recruiting: 208, 29th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%63rd of 128Returning production: 68%, 63rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.7+26.73rd of 128SP+ rating: +26.7, 3rd 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 Washington's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.13 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 STANQ2 8:52 4th & 1 at STAN 1, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.0 pts
2. at UTAHQ4 5:09 4th & 8 at UTAH 41, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs COLOQ2 0:00 4th & 1 at COLO 49, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. at WSUQ3 8:45 4th & 1 at WASH 34, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at ALAQ4 14:50 4th & 3 at WASH 48, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. at CALQ2 11:39 4th & 1 at WASH 45, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at UTAHQ4 12:56 4th & 4 at UTAH 23, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. vs COLOQ2 12:16 4th & 5 at COLO 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

30th 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. W

   RUTG
2. W

   IDHO
3. W

   PRST
4. W

   ARIZ
5. W

   STAN
6. W

   ORE
7. W

   ORST
8. W

   UTAH
9. W

   CAL
10. L

    USC
11. W

    ASU
12. W

    WSU
13. W

    COLO
14. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2016

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+1.61
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.83

Game by game

• RUTGW 48-13 vs RUTG93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• IDHOW 59-14 vs IDHO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• PRSTW 41-3 vs PRST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• ARIZW 35-28 at ARIZ78% → 77%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +26, Timeouts +17
• STANW 44-6 vs STAN63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +37
• OREW 70-21 at ORE69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +38, Clock +1
• ORSTW 41-17 vs ORST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• UTAHW 31-24 at UTAH81% → 95%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +31, Clock +2
• CALW 66-27 at CAL89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• USCL 13-26 vs USC76% → 1%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• ASUW 44-18 vs ASU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• WSUW 45-17 at WSU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +39, Clock +1
• COLOW 41-10 vs COLO69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts −1
• ALAL 7-24 at ALA19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −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.