Skip to content

Washington Huskies

Big Ten·2-0·
Elo
1762#18
SP+
12.0#29
FPI
9.5
AP
#19
Nextvs Eastern Washington · Wk 3
Talent #24 (777.6)Recruiting class #1354% production returning

Roster · 101 players

FR 46SO 21JR 17SR 17
#PlayerPosClHtWt
1Demond Williams Jr.QBJR5'11"191
7Elijah BrownQBSO6'2"205
9Dash BeierlyQBFR6'0"213
10Treston McMillanQBFR5'11"213
15Derek ZammitQBFR6'0"208
4Jordan WashingtonRBSO5'10"181
17Jayden LimarRBSR5'10"205
20D'Aryhian ClemonsRBFR5'10"175
21Quaid CarrRBFR5'11"189
22Trey CooleyRBSR5'10"208
27Beck WalkerRBSR6'1"216
29Julian McMahanRBFR6'1"234
30Ansu SanoeRBFR6'2"241
32Ryken MoonRBFR5'11"214
34Brian Bonner Jr.RBFR5'11"196
2Dezmen RoebuckWRSO5'11"184
3Rashid WilliamsWRJR6'1"200
5Christian MossWRSR6'3"205
6Mason JamesWRFR5'10"185
8Chris LawsonWRSO6'0"184
11Jordan ClayWRFR6'3"207
12Trez DavisWRFR6'0"190
16Justice WilliamsWRSO6'3"219
18Bodpegn MillerWRFR6'3"200
35Jace BurtonWRSO5'8"168
80Blaise LaVistaWRFR6'2"197
81Asa ThompsonWRFR6'1"185
82Deji AjoseWRFR6'1"197
44Kade EldridgeTEJR6'4"250
45Austin SimmonsTEFR6'5"251
84Kekua AumuaTEFR6'5"266
85Baron NaoneTESO6'4"263
86Decker DeGraafTEJR6'4"249
88Sam VyhlidalTEFR6'4"222
89Charlie CrowellTESO6'5"260
54Parker CrossOLJR6'2"292
55Kolt DieterichOLJR6'6"295
56Geirean HatchettOLSR6'4"306
65Jack ShafferOLFR6'6"351
66Landen HatchettOLSR6'3"314
67Aidan AndersonOLJR6'5"318
68Soane FaasoloOLJR6'8"320
70Justin HylkemaOLFR6'7"326
71Ah Deong YangOLFR6'3"343
72John MillsOLSO6'6"338
73Champ TaulealeaOLFR6'5"344
74Drew AzzopardiOLSR6'7"322
75Lowen Colman-BrusaOLFR6'6"326
76Kodi GreeneOLFR6'6"321
77Elishah JackettOLJR6'7"291
78Jake FloresOLFR6'5"305
79Dominic HarrisOLFR6'7"356
11Ramzak FrueanEDGEFR6'4"226
12Logan GeorgeEDGEJR6'4"264
44Hayden MooreEDGEJR6'3"238
48Jacob LaneEDGESR6'5"256
52Devin HydeEDGESO6'5"253
55Victor Sanchez HernandezEDGEFR6'5"256
91Isaiah WardEDGESR6'4"238
99Russell Davis IIEDGESR6'3"231
5Derek Colman-BrusaDLFR6'5"295
18Kai McClendonDLSO6'1"334
33Darin ConleyDLJR6'3"290
50David SchwerzelDLFR6'4"275
54JD HillDLFR6'2"275
56Ta'a MaluDLFR6'4"280
58DeSean WattsDLJR6'0"313
64Tufanua Ionatana Umu-CaisDLFR6'2"312
90Elinneus DavisDLJR6'3"312
94Joseph PekoDLFR6'2"315
98Omar KhanDLSO6'3"312
0Taariq Al-UqdahLBSR5'10"236
9Jacob ManuLBSR5'9"222
10Xe'ree AlexanderLBSR6'1"238
23Zaydrius Rainey-SaleLBSO6'2"216
25Donovan Robinson Jr.LBFR6'2"222
40Ezaya TokioLBFR6'4"230
57Jesse EwellLBFR
3Emmanuel KarnleyCBJR6'0"188
6Dylan RobinsonCBSO6'3"210
8Ramonz Adams Jr.CBFR6'0"176
13Rahsjon DuncanCBFR6'1"186
17Elijah DurrCBFR6'0"186
24Jeron JonesCBFR5'11"177
26Elias JohnsonCBSO6'2"179
28Ksani JilesCBFR6'0"193
30Kayden GreeneCBSO6'1"188
2Rahshawn ClarkSSO5'11"198
4Rylon Dillard-AllenSSO5'11"187
7Alex McLaughlinSSR6'2"204
15Rahim Wright IISSO5'10"195
21Gavin DaySFR6'3"195
31Paul Mencke Jr.SSO6'3"201
CJ ChristianSSR6'0"209
36C.J. WallacePKFR5'10"182
38Hunter McKeePKSO6'3"211
95Tyler RoblesPKJR5'7"178
45Luke DunnePJR6'5"214
93Hunter GreenPSR6'4"230
33Ryan KeanLSSR6'0"216
42Ben FerberLSFR

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
20.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
12.0
scoring defense
Differential
+8.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
379.0#87
Yards / play
5.5#102
Passing yards / game
258.5#51
Rushing yards / game
120.5#111
First downs / game
19.0#95
3rd down %
34.5%#101
4th down %
0.0%#114
Time of possession
32:11#41
Defense
Yards allowed / game
256.5#32
Yards / play allowed
4.5#46
Pass yards allowed / game
169.0#47
Rush yards allowed / game
87.5#37
3rd down % allowed
27.3%#31
Sacks
6#20
Tackles for loss
16#18
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
+6#3
Takeaways
6#5
Giveaways
0#1
Penalties / game
9.0#122
Penalty yards / game
87.0#129

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2 games in

pass-leaning

Washington throws it: Jedd Fisch's offenses have been pass-leaning across 6 seasons. The strengths are on both sides of the ball, led by 8th at generating havoc. The way in is 136th at hitting chunk plays.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+1.9%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −18.9% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Washington has played 2 games against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 23% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Strengths

  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    27.8%
    #8 of 138
  • Offensefirst and second down
    53%
    #9 of 138
  • Offensesacks and tackles for loss
    9.2%
    #11 of 138

Soft spots

  • Offensehitting chunk plays
    0.99
    #136 of 138

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 9 to play
6.44.6
projected final record (now 20)
Exp. wins left
4.4
of 9 games
Bowl odds
75%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
83%
vs Michigan State
Toughest
12%
vs Oregon

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 9 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

234567891011
final winstallest bar = 29% chance
Likeliest finish 6-5 (29%)Bowl eligible 75% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
QBDemond Williams Jr., Derek Zammit
+26.4 EPA
WRRashid Williams, Chris Lawson +3
+16.5 EPA
TEDecker DeGraaf, Baron Naone
+5.8 EPA
RBTrevion Cooley, Jayden Limar +3
-16.1 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
EPA +25.90.288/play90 snaps
EPA -1.2-0.056/play22 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0615th#118
Def-0.0281st#27
Explosiveness
Off0.994th#132
Def1.3526th#102
Field position
Off68.739th#85
Def73.636th#89
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off2.6712th#122
Def2.8367th#46
Turnovers
Won 6Lost 0
Margin +6

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
Defense
Off · pass
0.1824th#105
Off · rush
-0.0117th#115

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.0116th#116
Def-0.1174th#37
Passing
Off0.1822nd#108
Def0.0580th#29

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
2.65#115
2nd-level / open-field
0.90 / 0.85
Power / stuff (off)
57.1% / 25.4%
Havoc — total (def)
27.8%#4
Havoc — front 7 / DB
15.7% / 12.2%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.04
Def-0.13
Pass downs
Off0.13
Def0.20

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.20#35-0.02#1120.49#76
Defense0.01#87-0.23#140.20#40

Elo Trajectory

Washington StateFinal
Elo rating 17441757+13 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 46 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.0716th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0275th
  • Offense success rate44%48th
  • Defense success rate allowed31%80th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs53%69th
  • Offense success — passing downs17%5th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs34%85th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs23%70th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.007th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.323rd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.8814th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.162nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards2.718th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.560th
  • Offense highlight yards0.8539th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.5956th
  • Offense power success0.5520th
  • Defense power success allowed0.0099th
  • Offense stuff rate0.259th
  • Defense stuff rate0.3799th

Third down

  • Third down conversion34%23rd
  • Third down distance faced7.917th
  • Third down conversion allowed29%75th
  • Third down distance forced7.865th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.1776th
  • Net success rate — second half0.0447th

Drives

  • Points per drive1.638th
  • Points per drive allowed1.182nd
  • Average starting field position3168th
  • Opponent starting field position2762nd
  • Available yards gained44%34th
  • Available yards allowed32%88th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive85%64th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed64%93rd
  • Points per scoring opportunity1.926th
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.782nd
  • Three-and-out rate25%46th
  • Three-and-outs forced45%95th

CORE

  • CORE offense-6.013th
  • CORE defense-5.483rd
  • CORE overall-0.5645th

Roster

  • Returning usage57%67th
  • Returning EPA22883rd
  • Team talent composite77883rd
  • Recruiting class rank13.091st
  • Recruiting class points26291st

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.064#118 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.176#108
Rush EPA/play
-0.013#116
Explosiveness
0.994#132
Pts/opportunity
2.67#122
Success rate
44.0%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.190 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

High-pressure defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
-0.019#27 · top 20%
Havoc rate (total)
27.8%#4
Front-7 havoc
15.7%
DB havoc
12.2%
Big play rate allowed
1.346#102
Success rate allowed
31.3%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

Points per game
20.0
Points allowed/game
12.0
Scoring margin/game
+8.0
Turnover margin
+6won 6 · lost 0
Production returning
54%
Talent rank (247)
#24

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE15thEXPLOSIVENESS4thFINISHING12thFIELD POS39thDEFENSE81thHAVOC98th50th100th
Offense
15th
Explosiveness
4th
Finishing
12th
Field Pos
39th
Defense
81th
Havoc
98th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+10.9
#34
Offense
-0.7
#75
Defense
-11.7
#12
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 20 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive1.651.09
Starting field positionown 30.7own 26.9
Available yards44.0%32.1%
Scoring opportunities85.0%63.6%
Points per opportunity1.941.71
Three-and-out rate25.0%45.5%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
57.3%
Expected, given the spots
44.1%
Over expected
+13.2
Fourth down vs peers
-5
Fourth down vs the model
-57
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Washington is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Washington in 2026

by EPA/play distance
TulsaSP+ -2.3
Off EPA/play +0.099Def EPA/play +0.010Elo 1268
Match
97%
VanderbiltSP+ +12.1
Off EPA/play +0.116Def EPA/play -0.036Elo 1753
Match
97%
Utah StateSP+ -11.5
Off EPA/play +0.052Def EPA/play +0.044Elo 1376
Match
96%
MichiganSP+ +12.2
Off EPA/play +0.125Def EPA/play -0.018Elo 1686
Match
96%
Florida InternationalSP+ -13.5
Off EPA/play +0.147Def EPA/play -0.003Elo 1385
Match
95%
UCFSP+ +5.9
Off EPA/play +0.104Def EPA/play -0.106Elo 1465
Match
94%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 20152026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +15.1, #21 of 1282016: +33.4, #2 of 1282017: +21.4, #12 of 1302018: +17.3, #13 of 1302019: +9.0, #34 of 1302020: +3.9, #49 of 1242021: -3.4, #82 of 1302022: +10.3, #30 of 1312023: +24.4, #9 of 1332024: +16.8, #18 of 1342025: +21.7, #11 of 1362026: +10.9, #34 of 138
20152026
Now +10.9 · #34 of 138Best +33.4 in 2016Worst -3.4 in 2021

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
1.8+0.2
20259-45-4
69%
8.7+0.3
20246-74-5
46%
7.2-1.2
202314-110-0
93%
10.6+3.4
202211-27-2
85%
8.2+2.8
20214-83-6
33%
4.5-0.5
20203-13-1
75%
2.6+0.4
20198-54-5
62%
8.0-0.0
201810-48-2
71%
11.2-1.2
201710-37-2
77%
10.1-0.1

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

6.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

2-0 so far, projected to finish 7.0-5.0. Top-four bye in 0.8%. Wins the Big Ten in 0.8%.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
64%
2 losses
1.5%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

down 14.0 points since preseasonwon 24-10 over Washington State against an expected margin of +23, so 8.5 against the number.

  • At 3 losses they are 1.5% where the average Big Ten team is 12%.
  • The Big Ten takes 2.71 bids in an average season, and four or more in 18%.

Washington’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk12vs Indiana17.6
  • wk13at Oregon15.6
  • wk5at USC13.8
  • wk10vs Penn State11.9
  • wk9at Nebraska11.6
  • wk6vs Iowa9.5

Who to root for

Games Washington is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk3Utah State over Utah1.4
  • wk6Kentucky over LSU1.0
  • wk10UL Monroe over Arkansas State0.9
  • wk11Vanderbilt over Alabama0.9
  • wk3Sam Houston over Nicholls0.8
  • wk11Northwestern over Ohio State0.8
The full playoff picture →

Big Ten

0-0 in league play, projected 4.0-5.010 of 18 by title odds
0.8%
Wins the Big Ten
2.7%
Reaches the title game

The Big Ten sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 50% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk12Indiana at Washington3.0
  • wk13Washington at Oregon2.2
  • wk5Washington at USC1.9
  • wk10Penn State at Washington1.7

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Big Ten race →

If not the playoff, then

80%
Bowl eligible
71%
Placed in a bowl
6.1%
In the playoff
23%
Season over in November

Washington is 2-0 and needs 4 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 3.3% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • GameAbove Sports Bowl9.3%
  • LA Bowl9.0%
  • Rate Bowl8.6%
  • Pinstripe Bowl8.3%
  • Las Vegas Bowl7.6%
  • Music City Bowl5.9%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 14 have sent Washington a player since 2010 — 54 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Washington's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
St. John BoscoCA111
ServiteCA51
Mater DeiCA50
Mission ViejoCA50
Oaks ChristianCA50
AuburnAL31
SaguaroAZ31
CentennialCA30
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.