Skip to content
Blake Baker

#5Blake Baker

Blake Baker is a Dual-Threat QB for Louisiana Tech. Blake's 2025 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 227 plays — a developing rate for the QB.

What projects, and what doesn't · QBs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.46
    Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.05
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.51
    Beats guessing the QB average by 20%. n=1,965 QB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Blake Baker's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2025 Production

Passing
102/155 Comp/Att1252 Pass yards5 Pass TD3 INT65.8% Comp %
Rushing
260 Rush yards3 Rush TD73 Carries3.6 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

32
Attempts
7.9y
Avg depth
7.4y
After catch
59%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.9 yards in the air on an average throw 0.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 27y
2
50% · 67y
1
100% · 29y
short
5
80% · 15y
11
55% · 80y
11
55% · 58y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat71
  • Consistency77
  • Clutch85
Player type
Dual-Threat QB

A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.

Rushing threatScrambles for valueStresses defensive structure
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)8th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency77th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.09 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.68 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -16).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6800.68Wk 2 vs LSU: +0.34 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico State: +0.68 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Southern Miss: +0.31 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs UTEP: -0.02 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Kennesaw State: +0.13 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Western Kentucky: +0.34 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Sam Houston: +0.45 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Delaware: +0.04 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
2@LSUL7-2310.33/8461085.71300.34
3vsNew Mexico StateW49-14-15.58/161821078.910310.68
4vsSouthern MissW30-20-7.115/212390067.82910.31
5@UTEPW30-11-17.518/261371126.2-100-0.02
7@Kennesaw StateL7-35-5.46/11460069.83500.13
9vsWestern KentuckyL27-281.631/453401150.64900.34
10vsSam HoustonW55-14-27.817/212211181.04210.45
11@DelawareL24-25-10.94/7410035.2-100.04

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
41.3%
Passing plays
70.4%
Rushing plays
20.7%
Standard downs
35.3%
Passing downs
55.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.44
Pass / Rush EPA
0.35 / 0.26

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.