Washington

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.2797th
  Defense−0.0389th
• 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.
  Offense49.1%96th
  Defense39.7%74th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1738th
  Defense+1.0790th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2291st
  Defense−0.0992nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3695th
  Defense+0.0478th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.5%98th
  Defense43.8%75th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.6%72nd
  Defense31.4%64th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2490th
  Defense2.5084th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%66th
  Defense19.5%47th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%76th
  Defense18.7%78th

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, 2017

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
   MONT
3. W
   FRES
4. W
   COLO
5. W
   ORST
6. W
   CAL
7. L
   ASU
8. W
   UCLA
9. W
   ORE
10. L
    STAN
11. W
    UTAH
12. W
    WSU
13. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2017

1. Jake BrowningQB265 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 80th of 226 QBs
   0.94WAR0.51 to 1.38
2. Myles Gaskin?147 plays · +0.180 pts/play
   0.49WAR0.36 to 0.64
3. Lavon Coleman?54 plays · +0.188 pts/play
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
4. Dante PettisWR67 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 110th of 426 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.20
5. Aaron FullerWR30 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 349th of 426 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Chico McClatcherWR8 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 391st of 426 WRs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.02
7. Drew SampleTE11 plays · +0.041 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
8. Will DisslyTE18 plays · +0.023 pts/play · 67th of 199 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.03

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  70770724th of 130Roster talent: 707, 24th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21221228th of 130Recruiting: 212, 28th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%15th of 128Returning production: 83%, 15th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +22.1+22.110th of 128SP+ rating: +22.1, 10th of 128 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, 2017

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 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.11 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 UTAHQ4 4:31 4th & 8 at UTAH 15, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.4 pts
2. at ASUQ3 0:50 4th & 2 at ASU 4, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at ASUQ4 6:29 4th & 9 at ASU 20, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. at STANQ3 7:39 4th & 4 at STAN 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
5. at PSUQ2 9:45 4th & 4 at PSU 48, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at RUTGQ2 6:19 4th & 7 at RUTG 40, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at ORSTQ3 14:56 4th & 10 at ORST 25, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs UCLAQ2 3:50 4th & 3 at UCLA 9, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

98th of 130 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

   MONT
3. W

   FRES
4. W

   COLO
5. W

   ORST
6. W

   CAL
7. L

   ASU
8. W

   UCLA
9. W

   ORE
10. L

    STAN
11. W

    UTAH
12. W

    WSU
13. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2017

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+0.09
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.08

Game by game

• RUTGW 30-14 at RUTG96% → 98%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +12
• MONTW 63-7 vs MONT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• FRESW 48-16 vs FRES98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• COLOW 37-10 at COLO79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +28, Clock +1
• ORSTW 42-7 at ORST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +7
• CALW 38-7 vs CAL97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• ASUL 7-13 at ASU89% → 4%Before kickoff +39 · On the field −85: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −3
• UCLAW 44-23 vs UCLA89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• OREW 38-3 vs ORE89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +13
• STANL 22-30 at STAN70% → 2%Before kickoff +20 · On the field −68: Scoreboard −45, Timeouts −2
• UTAHW 33-30 vs UTAH89% → 96%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +17, Possession & field position +1
• WSUW 41-14 vs WSU75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +26
• PSUL 28-35 at PSU41% → 3%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2

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.