Skip to content
C.J. Carr

C.J. Carr

C.J. Carr is a Dual-Threat QB for Notre Dame. C.J.'s 2025 season ranks in the 88th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 310 plays — a above-average 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 C.J. Carr'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
195/293 Comp/Att2741 Pass yards24 Pass TD6 INT66.6% Comp %
Rushing
33 Rush yards3 Rush TD41 Carries0.8 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

29
Attempts
6.0y
Avg depth
7.4y
After catch
66%
Catch rate

The ball travels 6.0 yards in the air on an average throw 1.8 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
3
0% · 0y
0
0
short
10
70% · 99y
5
100% · 70y
11
64% · 70y
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

  • Efficiency88
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency75
  • Clutch100
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)88th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (88th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.15 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.46 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Purdue (SP+ -6).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand deals.

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

+1.4601.46Wk 1 vs Miami: +0.26 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Texas A&M: +0.26 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Purdue: +1.46 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Arkansas: +0.90 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Boise State: +0.28 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs NC State: +0.34 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs USC: -0.08 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Boston College: +0.66 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Navy: +1.13 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Pittsburgh: +0.20 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Syracuse: +0.22 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Stanford: +0.48 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@MiamiL24-2720.719/302212161.81610.26
3vsTexas A&ML40-4120.720/322931181.0-1500.26
4vsPurdueW56-30-6.110/122232090.0001.46
5@ArkansasW56-135.122/303544098.1000.90
6vsBoise StateW28-73.115/231892074.72500.28
7vsNC StateW36-74.819/313422167.0-1000.34
8vsUSCW34-2416.916/261361132.8-71-0.08
10@Boston CollegeW25-10-8.518/252992092.61200.66
11vsNavyW49-106.213/162183098.51.13
12@PittsburghW37-158.421/322122262.0710.20
13vsSyracuseW70-7-13.15/9491062.6-1000.22
14@StanfordW49-20-11.817/272052090.01500.48

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
43.7%
Passing plays
91.6%
Rushing plays
7.2%
Standard downs
39.1%
Passing downs
54.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
0.67
Pass / Rush EPA
0.46 / 0.43

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.
C J Carr Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Notre Dame · Gridpex