Skip to content
J'Koby Williams

#20J'Koby Williams

J'Koby Williams is a Pass-Catching Back for Texas Tech. J'Koby's 2025 season ranks in the 83th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 182 plays — a above-average rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So J'Koby Williams'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

Rushing
866 Rush yards6 Rush TD154 Carries5.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
35 Receptions388 Rec yards2 Rec TD11.1 Yards/rec
Returns
6 Kick returns242 KR yards1 KR TD3 Punt returns27 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

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

8
Targets
-1.8y
Avg depth
8.9y
After catch
100%
Catch rate

The ball travels -1.8 yards in the air on an average target 10.8 yards shorter than the median. Another 8.9 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
2
100% · 37y
2
100% · 16y
4
100% · 4y
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 RB peers

  • Efficiency83
  • Volume55
  • Explosiveness52
  • Consistency75
  • Receiving88
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)83th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the RB position (83th percentile).
  • 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.
  • Peak game: 1.01 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff.

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.

Historical Comparables · RB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Breece HallIowa State0.3404.5102.3
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0101.01Wk 1 vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff: +1.01 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Kent State: +0.38 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oregon State: +0.47 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Utah: +0.21 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Houston: +0.31 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kansas: -0.07 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Arizona State: +0.02 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oklahoma State: +0.43 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Kansas State: +0.44 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs BYU: +0.21 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UCF: +0.50 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs West Virginia: +0.10 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs BYU: +0.09 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsArkansas-Pine BluffW67-76569.311-101.01
2vsKent StateW62-14-19.39546.0033500.38
3vsOregon StateW45-14-15.913483.71711610.47
4@UtahW34-1022.211433.9027100.21
6@HoustonW35-117.4191075.622600.31
7vsKansasW42-174.19485.30-0.07
8@Arizona StateL22-263.93227.301800.02
9vsOklahoma StateW42-0-15.14102.5036010.43
10@Kansas StateW43-207.0171357.912500.44
11vsBYUW29-715.913775.9023200.21
12vsUCFW48-9-1.27456.4043000.50
14@West VirginiaW49-0-6.815604.0121100.10
15vsBYUW34-715.915805.301-200.09
20vsOregonL0-2325.913816.205170

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
19.1%
Passing plays
9.2%
Rushing plays
29.0%
Standard downs
21.5%
Passing downs
14.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.16
Passing downs
0.57
Pass / Rush EPA
0.54 / 0.18

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.