#10Cooper Rush

QB·Central Michigan·20156.2 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Cooper Rush is a Dual-Threat QB for Central Michigan. Cooper's 2015 season ranks in the 13th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 499 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 Cooper Rush'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.

2015 Production

Passing

324/489 Comp/Att3848 Pass yards25 Pass TD11 INT66.3% Comp %

Rushing

48 Rush yards3 Rush TD63 Carries0.8 Yards/carry

Punting

1 Punts55 Punt yards55.0 Yards/punt55 Long0 Inside 20

Performance Analysis · 2015 · vs QB peers

Efficiency13
Volume100
Dual-Threat99
Consistency83
Clutch94

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)13th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency83th %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.
▸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 — 0.19 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.71 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Western Michigan (SP+ 5).

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsOklahoma State	L13-24	9.9	28/41	225	0	1	59.9	51	1	0.27
2	vsMonmouth	W31-10	—	25/36	328	3	1	90.0	-12	0	0.56
3	@Syracuse	L27-30	-3.9	37/51	430	2	1	62.0	-40	0	0.27
4	@Michigan State	L10-30	15.6	26/39	285	1	0	75.1	-31	0	0.33
5	vsNorthern Illinois	W29-19	-0.9	16/31	182	2	1	55.2	—	—	0.33
6	@Western Michigan	L39-41	4.9	23/32	321	4	1	94.2	39	0	0.71
7	vsBuffalo	W51-14	-10.3	23/30	313	4	1	95.0	-5	1	0.68
8	@Ball State	W23-21	-15.5	30/38	316	2	1	69.6	-6	0	0.44
9	@Akron	W14-6	-0.8	23/37	226	2	1	51.0	21	0	0.23
11	vsToledo	L23-28	7.7	33/52	349	2	1	73.0	23	0	0.19
12	@Kent State	W27-14	-11.9	20/34	337	1	0	76.9	7	0	—
13	vsEastern Michigan	W35-28	-19.7	25/39	391	2	1	69.9	4	0	0.18
1	vsMinnesota	L14-21	8.1	15/29	145	0	1	31.7	-3	1	0.06

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

59.7%

Passing plays

98.8%

Rushing plays

9.0%

Standard downs

49.9%

Passing downs

78.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.22
Passing downs: 0.49
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.34 / 0.40

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2015 · 12 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.