University of Washington Offensive Rate Stats - Big10 Conference Games Only

Tequilla

Tequilla

Active poster
This is something I like to look at each year to see how UW compares to the rest of the conference as well as what the YoY trending looks like. I look at conference only games (including the B10 title game) to eliminate the noise of non-conference play and with the way that the Big10 set up the 5-year schedule rotation, these schedules should generally be fairly representative year after year.
The format for each stat will be the same (Conference Rank, UW-2025, YoY, B10 average, B10 #'s for CFP teams) …
OFFENSIVE STATS
Yards per Carry
Conference Rank: 12th
2025 UW: 4.12
2024 UW: 3.62; +14% YoY
B10 Avg: 4.26
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (4.99 - 3rd); Ohio St (4.43 - 8th); Oregon (5.38 - 1st)
Yards per Pass Attempt
Conference Rank: 7th
2025 UW: 7.89
2024 UW: 7.29; +8% YoY
B10 Avg: 7.15
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (9.56 - 1st); Ohio St (8.94 - 2nd); Oregon (8.17 - 5th)
Yards per Pass Completion
Conference Rank: 6th
2025 UW: 11.47
2024 UW: 10.38; +10% YoY
B10 Avg: 11.11
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (13.44 - 2nd); Ohio St (11.43 - 7th); Oregon (11.26 - 8th)
Yards per Offensive Play
Conference Rank: 6th
2025 UW: 5.89
2024 UW: 5.45; +8% YoY
B10 Avg: 5.58
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (6.79 - 1st); Ohio St (6.49 - 4th); Oregon (6.60 - 2nd)
Points per Game
Conference Rank: 7th
2025 UW: 26.4
2024 UW: 20.7; +28% YoY
B10 Avg: 24.2
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (38.9 - 1st); Ohio St (33.3 - 2nd); Oregon (32.1 - 3rd)
Points per 100 Yards of Offense (Efficiency Metric)
Conference Rank: 9th
2025 UW: 7.07
2024 UW: 5.87; +20% YoY
B10 Avg: 6.82
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (8.90 - 2nd); Ohio St (8.01 - 4th); Oregon (7.49 - 6th)
Plays per Turnover
Conference Rank: 14th
2025 UW: 48
2024 UW: 58; -18% YoY
B10 Avg: 63
B10 CFP Teams: Indiana (92 - 3rd); Ohio St (107 - 2nd); Oregon (65 - 6th)
 
Quick Analysis (High-Level)
The big area of emphasis going into the year was how the impact of an improved OL (both in talent and depth) as well as having healthy TEs would help in sustaining the run game and in the red zone. Both metrics saw substantial YoY increases versus the 2024 team.
While the run game showed improvement in 2025, the conference ranking (12th) and the questionable ability to run against the top end defenses in the conference and also highlighted the continued need for depth improvements as the run game struggled when injuries hit. The other big area where the run game leaves a bad taste in the mouth for the season is the performance at Wisconsin in the elements as in a game where the weather (and injuries made the passing game a challenge), Washington was unable to establish a consistent run against a Top 6 rushing defense in the conference (in contrast, Wisconsin was dead last in the conference in completion % and the only games where it didn't get gashed were either weather games or Iowa).
The impact of Demond on the run game is something that I think is difficult to completely pinpoint for 2 key reasons:
  1. Impact of sacks: Demond didn't take a ton of sacks (21 in 9 conference games) but when you back out the yardage lost on those sacks (116 yards, 5.5 yards lost per sack), the rushing yards per carry bumps up to 4.8 yards per carry (a far more palpable number)
  2. Impact of short scrambles: Demond has a tendency to tuck the ball and run when either the pocket breaks down or he can't find anybody open instead of throwing the ball away. I haven't researched the numbers for the number of shortish runs made in those situations that suppress rushing averages (byproduct is that it also inflates completion % and passing rate stats).
Despite the struggles in the passing game that we all saw this year, I was a bit surprised to see that all rate stats were actually improved by 8-10% vs 2024. What makes this surprising to me is that if you think back to the 2024 UW team, there were 3 accomplished WR options (Boston, Giles, Hunter) as well as 2 TE options (Latu and DeGraaf). For 2025, you only had Boston and DeGraaf returning and really only Roebuck stepping up and filling the gap. The one metric that took a slight step back in the passing game was completion % dropping from 70.2% to 68.8% … I wouldn't consider that very material.
The passing game becomes a significant area of focus in this offseason and an area where there's room for significant growth in 2026. Against good teams there wasn't a significant threat of defenses being beat in the passing game and the overall youth at the WR position while showing great promise also had a hand in the inconsistencies in the passing game.
The other big area of improvement for UW in 2026 is in protecting the football better. Big picture, the conference average is that teams turn the ball over just over 1x per game in conference play. It's a relatively conservative conference where defense and field position are huge factors - average scoring is at 24 points per game. This isn't to say that Washington is terrible at protecting the football … but it needs to find ways to get better and obviously a lot of that is going to be on the shoulders of Demond. Turnovers was a big story in many of the losses this year.
This will also hold true for the defensive stats (which I'll post later) … but there is a clear tier level to the B10 and its rate stats. When UW joined the B10 I think everybody viewed the conference and those with a path to CFP success being Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Oregon, UW, and USC. Indiana with Cignetti has pushed themselves into that group and we'll see what happens with Penn St. There is generally a clear consensus with the same programs dominating the Top 6 or 7 spots in the conference rankings. The good news is UW is in that group this year. The bad news is that UW is at the bottom of that group. However, given the rebuild that was on the table after the 2023 season and the program made from 2024 to 2025 … the numbers are suggesting that UW is moving in the right direction and will be knocking at those CFP levels in the relative near future.
 
screenshot-20251209-071005.jpg
 
If fairness, the likes of @Tequilla @Dennis_DeYoung and @CokeGreaterThanPepsi did a good job at looking at stats are for losers in 2015 and predicting the great 2016 resurgence of Husky Football.
 
Tequilla said:
Quick Analysis (High-Level)
The big area of emphasis going into the year was how the impact of an improved OL (both in talent and depth) as well as having healthy TEs would help in sustaining the run game and in the red zone. Both metrics saw substantial YoY increases versus the 2024 team.
While the run game showed improvement in 2025, the conference ranking (12th) and the questionable ability to run against the top end defenses in the conference and also highlighted the continued need for depth improvements as the run game struggled when injuries hit. The other big area where the run game leaves a bad taste in the mouth for the season is the performance at Wisconsin in the elements as in a game where the weather (and injuries made the passing game a challenge), Washington was unable to establish a consistent run against a Top 6 rushing defense in the conference (in contrast, Wisconsin was dead last in the conference in completion % and the only games where it didn't get gashed were either weather games or Iowa).
The impact of Demond on the run game is something that I think is difficult to completely pinpoint for 2 key reasons:
Despite the struggles in the passing game that we all saw this year, I was a bit surprised to see that all rate stats were actually improved by 8-10% vs 2024. What makes this surprising to me is that if you think back to the 2024 UW team, there were 3 accomplished WR options (Boston, Giles, Hunter) as well as 2 TE options (Latu and DeGraaf). For 2025, you only had Boston and DeGraaf returning and really only Roebuck stepping up and filling the gap. The one metric that took a slight step back in the passing game was completion % dropping from 70.2% to 68.8% … I wouldn't consider that very material.
The passing game becomes a significant area of focus in this offseason and an area where there's room for significant growth in 2026. Against good teams there wasn't a significant threat of defenses being beat in the passing game and the overall youth at the WR position while showing great promise also had a hand in the inconsistencies in the passing game.
The other big area of improvement for UW in 2026 is in protecting the football better. Big picture, the conference average is that teams turn the ball over just over 1x per game in conference play. It's a relatively conservative conference where defense and field position are huge factors - average scoring is at 24 points per game. This isn't to say that Washington is terrible at protecting the football … but it needs to find ways to get better and obviously a lot of that is going to be on the shoulders of Demond. Turnovers was a big story in many of the losses this year.
This will also hold true for the defensive stats (which I'll post later) … but there is a clear tier level to the B10 and its rate stats. When UW joined the B10 I think everybody viewed the conference and those with a path to CFP success being Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Oregon, UW, and USC. Indiana with Cignetti has pushed themselves into that group and we'll see what happens with Penn St. There is generally a clear consensus with the same programs dominating the Top 6 or 7 spots in the conference rankings. The good news is UW is in that group this year. The bad news is that UW is at the bottom of that group. However, given the rebuild that was on the table after the 2023 season and the program made from 2024 to 2025 … the numbers are suggesting that UW is moving in the right direction and will be knocking at those CFP levels in the relative near future.
Click to expand...
I'd hate to see the not quick analysis.
 
Washington deserved the Holiday bowl over Arizona.
I refuse to believe it was anything other than one last Pac 12 Fuck You to UW. This is the last thing they have.
They don't even care that Arizona left before Washington did.
 
A couple things that make me not doog as much on the UW defense. Questions, because I'm not an expert:
  1. Is the kind of Kwitkowski bend but don't break non-explosive defense not helping the offense? Especially one that turns the ball over itself? It seemed like even against bad opponents, outside of the Wisconsin punt block, the team never got good field position off of turnovers, and failed to cause a turnover in the four losses.
  2. The team played 2.5 teams with QBs who were good. One of those, Ohio State had training wheels on their QB and probably wouldn't have as much later in the season, and wanted to just run the clock out. Oregon definitely had things opened up more when they needed but also wanted to mostly just run the ball and clock out with a lead. Illinois was ok and that was the only impressive performance against a QB with a pulse UW had. How much of this is just playing high school offenses?
 
We gave up an average of 25 points to the qb’s that had a pulse.
 
I asked ChatGPT to summarize in one paragraph for the tldr crew:
"Washington showed meaningful year-over-year improvement in both the run game and passing efficiency in 2025, largely due to a better offensive line and healthier tight ends, but still lagged behind top Big Ten programs—finishing just 12th in conference rushing and struggling against elite defenses, highlighted by a poor weather-impacted performance at Wisconsin. While quarterback Demond’s sack yardage and frequent short scrambles suppressed rushing averages, adjusted metrics were more respectable, and his rate-based passing stats actually improved 8–10% despite a thinner receiver group. Still, the passing attack lacked explosiveness against strong opponents, and turnovers—slightly above the conservative Big Ten norm—contributed to several losses. Overall, Washington sits at the lower end of the conference’s top competitive tier but, given the post-2023 rebuild and clear statistical progress from 2024 to 2025, appears to be trending toward true CFP contention in the near future."
 
Last edited:
WoolleyDoog said:
A couple things that make me not doog as much on the UW defense. Questions, because I'm not an expert:
Click to expand...
Agree with what you're saying to an extent. Things that I would point out.

  1. When we have playmakers at LB the defense showed some stuff. Manu and ZDR can make game altering plays. Manu plays with some serious juice and wasn't really 100 percent. ZDR for a true freshman off a big injury was flashing.
  2. Our safeties are also going to be good next year assuming they come back. Both are pretty good tacklers and around the ball consistently.
  3. The Main Reason I agree with you is the DLine was void of difference makers. Overall, they developed into a decent run stopping unit but offer very little in the pass rush. The game wrecking plays you elude to need dudes in the front four to mess up the offense. We just didn't have that.
 
WoolleyDoog said:
A couple things that make me not doog as much on the UW defense. Questions, because I'm not an expert:
Click to expand...
Rutgers was the "fastest" team in the conference running on average 70 plays a game. I'd say that probably has something to do with their defense being terrible and them often chasing games.
I don't necessarily see UW's defense as a "bend but don't break" scheme per se (although probably less aggressive than what Walters would ideally want to run) as it is the overall nature of B10 offenses being more of a grinding, run the clock bunch and the newer clock rules having the games move faster and as a result normalizing closer games.
Your point on QB quality in the conference is well taken but that's why I compare conference only games and against teams only in relation to their conference. This should normalize and index stats across the board. It's also worth pointing out that Rutgers actually had the most explosive passing offense in the conference when it came to yards per completion (blew my mind).
 
Tequilla said:
WoolleyDoog said:
A couple things that make me not doog as much on the UW defense. Questions, because I'm not an expert:
Click to expand...
Rutgers was the "fastest" team in the conference running on average 70 plays a game. I'd say that probably has something to do with their defense being terrible and them often chasing games.
I don't necessarily see UW's defense as a "bend but don't break" scheme per se (although probably less aggressive than what Walters would ideally want to run) as it is the overall nature of B10 offenses being more of a grinding, run the clock bunch and the newer clock rules having the games move faster and as a result normalizing closer games.
Your point on QB quality in the conference is well taken but that's why I compare conference only games and against teams only in relation to their conference. This should normalize and index stats across the board. It's also worth pointing out that Rutgers actually had the most explosive passing offense in the conference when it came to yards per completion (blew my mind).
Click to expand...
I guess another testament to the defense was how much the offense hung them out to dry against the better opponents they faced. They even gave them the ball back against Oregon with a couple minutes left with a chance to score some points and at least make the outcome look better and Demond through an int that looked like a pass you only throw on the final play of the game as time is running out.
The defense also was really good in the 4th and short. I'm not looking up numbers but remember a lot of stuffs in those situations, including against good teams. I wonder what they paid Pepa to basically be a 4th and short specialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top