Washington

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+0.1565th
  Defense+0.0180th
• 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.
  Offense46.6%79th
  Defense39.3%77th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1629th
  Defense+1.0692nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1265th
  Defense−0.0484th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2364th
  Defense+0.0676th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.9%84th
  Defense45.3%67th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.9%62nd
  Defense27.6%89th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9655th
  Defense2.8950th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.1%67th
  Defense16.7%20th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.5%69th
  Defense15.3%31st

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 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
   AUB
2. W
   UND
3. W
   UTAH
4. W
   ASU
5. W
   BYU
6. W
   UCLA
7. L
   ORE
8. W
   COLO
9. L
   CAL
10. W
    STAN
11. W
    ORST
12. W
    WSU
13. W
    UTAH
14. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2018

1. Jake BrowningQB352 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 68th of 225 QBs
   1.26WAR0.73 to 1.83
2. Myles Gaskin?220 plays · +0.212 pts/play
   0.87WAR0.69 to 1.04
3. Salvon AhmedRB90 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 170th of 351 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.32
4. Peyton HenryPK17 plays · +0.361 pts/play · 44th of 112 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
5. Ty JonesWR38 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 190th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. Aaron FullerWR76 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 194th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.19
7. Andre BaccelliaWR53 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 201st of 434 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.15
8. Drew SampleTE23 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 44th of 204 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 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 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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  77377318th of 130Roster talent: 773, 18th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22622623rd of 130Recruiting: 226, 23rd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%32nd of 129Returning production: 78%, 32nd of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +19.9+19.914th of 130SP+ rating: +19.9, 14th 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 Washington's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.24 of the 0.31 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 STANQ4 2:16 4th & 1 at WASH 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at AUBQ4 9:49 4th & 1 at WASH 41, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−5.1 pts
3. at CALQ4 9:04 4th & 6 at CAL 40, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
4. at CALQ4 15:00 4th & 3 at WASH 48, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
5. at WSUQ3 0:53 4th & 17 at WSU 35, up 5Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
6. vs UTAHQ3 4:11 4th & 12 at UTAH 32, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.7 pts
7. at UTAHQ3 13:06 4th & 1 at WASH 34, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
8. vs COLOQ3 10:26 4th & 2 at WASH 20, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

65th 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. L

   AUB
2. W

   UND
3. W

   UTAH
4. W

   ASU
5. W

   BYU
6. W

   UCLA
7. L

   ORE
8. W

   COLO
9. L

   CAL
10. W

    STAN
11. W

    ORST
12. W

    WSU
13. W

    UTAH
14. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2018

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+1.59
• Possession & field position−0.08
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.33

Game by game

• AUBL 16-21 at AUB48% → 4%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −2
• UNDW 45-3 vs UND79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• UTAHW 21-7 at UTAH64% → 99%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• ASUW 27-20 vs ASU90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• BYUW 35-7 vs BYU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• UCLAW 31-24 at UCLA93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• OREL 27-30 at ORE61% → 57%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +21
• COLOW 27-13 vs COLO89% → 99%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• CALL 10-12 at CAL80% → 9%Before kickoff +30 · On the field −71: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• STANW 27-23 vs STAN77% → 87%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• ORSTW 42-23 vs ORST98% → 98%Before kickoff +48 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +6
• WSUW 28-15 at WSU48% → 98%Before kickoff −2 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• UTAHW 10-3 vs UTAH68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• OSUL 23-28 at OSU32% → 5%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, 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.