Washington

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.3498th
  Defense+0.1820th
• 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.
  Offense51.7%97th
  Defense44.4%25th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2862nd
  Defense+1.2934th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2897th
  Defense+0.1129th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4194th
  Defense+0.2823rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.4%92nd
  Defense49.1%32nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense45.1%99th
  Defense34.4%15th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.3282nd
  Defense3.2228th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.9%84th
  Defense15.4%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense8.9%99th
  Defense14.1%20th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   KENT
2. W
   PRST
3. W
   MSU
4. W
   STAN
5. L
   UCLA
6. L
   ASU
7. W
   ARIZ
8. W
   CAL
9. W
   ORST
10. W
    ORE
11. W
    COLO
12. W
    WSU
13. W
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Washington.

Players, 2022

1. Michael Penix Jr.QB480 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 15th of 234 QBs
   2.29WAR1.31 to 3.39
2. Wayne TaulapapaRB128 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 62nd of 384 RBs
   0.38WAR0.28 to 0.49
3. Jalen McMillanWR81 plays · +0.199 pts/play · 14th of 455 WRs
   0.30WAR0.16 to 0.44
4. Rome OdunzeWR93 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 32nd of 455 WRs
   0.25WAR0.09 to 0.42
5. Ja'Lynn PolkWR46 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 62nd of 455 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.28
6. Cam DavisRB90 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 171st of 384 RBs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.25
7. Devin CulpTE36 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 15th of 214 TEs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.20
8. Jack WestoverTE33 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 25th of 214 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76276221st of 129Roster talent: 762, 21st of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21121129th of 129Recruiting: 211, 29th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%13th of 128Returning production: 83%, 13th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +15.7+15.718th of 129SP+ rating: +15.7, 18th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.07 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 ARIZQ4 11:22 4th & 1 at ARIZ 29, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.8 pts
2. vs ORSTQ2 0:08 4th & 11 at ORST 29, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal1.7 pts
3. at OREQ2 8:03 4th & 1 at WASH 10, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it1.6 pts
4. at WSUQ4 5:02 4th & 3 at WSU 3, up 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it1.3 pts
5. at CALQ2 0:00 4th & 10 at WASH 49, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting1.1 pts
6. vs MSUQ2 0:20 4th & 5 at MSU 34, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.7 pts
7. vs ORSTQ3 12:32 4th & 3 at WASH 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts
8. vs STANQ2 0:39 4th & 3 at STAN 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

12th of 131 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

   KENT
2. W

   PRST
3. W

   MSU
4. W

   STAN
5. L

   UCLA
6. L

   ASU
7. W

   ARIZ
8. W

   CAL
9. W

   ORST
10. W

    ORE
11. W

    COLO
12. W

    WSU
13. W

    TEX

What moved it, 2022

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+1.97
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts+0.06
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.65

Game by game

• KENTW 45-20 vs KENT93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• PRSTW 52-6 vs PRST97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MSUW 39-28 vs MSU58% → 98%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +2
• STANW 40-22 vs STAN80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24
• UCLAL 32-40 at UCLA56% → 3%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −41, Timeouts −2
• ASUL 38-45 at ASU87% → 7%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −80: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −2
• ARIZW 49-39 vs ARIZ81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +2
• CALW 28-21 at CAL73% → 95%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• ORSTW 24-21 vs ORST63% → 89%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +2
• OREW 37-34 at ORE23% → 79%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +37, Clock +3
• COLOW 54-7 vs COLO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +5
• WSUW 51-33 at WSU64% → 98%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41, Clock +3
• TEXW 27-20 vs TEX37% → 94%Before kickoff −13 · On the field +58: Scoreboard +33, Possession & field position +4

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.