Skip to content
Cameran Brown

#8Cameran Brown

Cameran Brown is a Dual-Threat QB for Georgia State. Cameran's 2025 season ranks in the 73th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 206 plays — a 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 Cameran Brown'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
119/184 Comp/Att1259 Pass yards13 Pass TD1 INT64.7% Comp %
Rushing
284 Rush yards4 Rush TD61 Carries4.7 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

42
Attempts
8.7y
Avg depth
6.9y
After catch
74%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.7 yards in the air on an average throw about the median for the position. Another 6.9 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 45y
1
0% · 0y
2
50% · 30y
short
16
81% · 166y
6
83% · 62y
15
73% · 140y
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

  • Efficiency73
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency62
  • Clutch69
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)73th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency62th %ile · average
Key findings
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • 4 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 — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.17 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Murray State.

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

+1.1701.17Wk 1 vs Ole Miss: -0.38 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Memphis: +0.68 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Murray State: +1.17 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Vanderbilt: +0.39 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs James Madison: +0.26 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs App State: +0.33 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Georgia Southern: +0.44 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs South Alabama: +0.48 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Coastal Carolina: +0.37 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Troy: -0.35 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@Ole MissL7-6324.08/14170042.7190-0.38
2vsMemphisL16-387.68/121391094.42510.68
3vsMurray StateW37-219/111013093.61401.17
4@VanderbiltL21-7020.39/13821081.6-1300.39
6vsJames MadisonL7-1412.33/4140078.01300.26
7vsApp StateL20-41-11.419/352122021.23010.33
8@Georgia SouthernL24-41-9.429/382801089.212010.44
9vsSouth AlabamaL31-38-12.719/332414180.56700.48
11@Coastal CarolinaL27-40-15.19/121161043.0010.37
13@TroyL19-31-4.86/1257004.590-0.35

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
35.3%
Passing plays
47.8%
Rushing plays
18.9%
Standard downs
31.4%
Passing downs
43.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
0.52
Pass / Rush EPA
0.38 / 0.57

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.