Skip to content
Isaiah Marshall

#8Isaiah Marshall

Isaiah Marshall is a Dual-Threat QB for Kansas.

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 Isaiah Marshall'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
3/3 Comp/Att28 Pass yards0 Pass TD0 INT100.0% Comp %
Rushing
160 Rush yards0 Rush TD15 Carries10.7 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

19
Attempts
10.8y
Avg depth
5.9y
After catch
74%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.8 yards in the air on an average throw 3.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 5.9 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 46y
1
100% · 47y
0
short
8
75% · 80y
5
60% · 45y
4
75% · 28y
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

  • Efficiency98
  • Volume12
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency77
  • Clutch40
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)98th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency77th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.22 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.66 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Oklahoma State (SP+ -15).

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

+1.6601.66Wk 1 vs Wagner: +0.58 EPA/play1Wk 5 vs Cincinnati: +0.36 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UCF: +0.45 EPA/play6Wk 10 vs Oklahoma State: +1.66 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Arizona: +0.31 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Iowa State: +0.23 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Utah: +0.56 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
0vsFresno StateW31-71.8130
1vsWagnerW46-73/3280081.32300.58
5vsCincinnatiL34-374.52000.36
6@UCFW27-20-1.21300.45
10vsOklahoma StateW38-21-15.14301.66
11@ArizonaL20-2412.0600.31
13@Iowa StateL14-389.9600.23
14vsUtahL21-3122.23600.56

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.1%
Passing plays
1.4%
Rushing plays
6.2%
Standard downs
5.1%
Passing downs
0.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.57
Passing downs
Pass / Rush EPA
— / 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.