Skip to content
Jalen Macon

#14Jalen Macon

Jalen Macon is a Volume Passer for Northern Illinois.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

29%
projected
band 11%'25 19%47%

Regressed toward the QB mean. Model correlation r≈0.46 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

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 Jalen Macon'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.

2026 Production

Passing
5/13 Comp/Att20 Pass yards0 Pass TD1 INT38.5% Comp %
Rushing
-1 Rush yards0 Rush TD10 Carries-0.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

12
Attempts
4.3y
Avg depth
2.0y
After catch
42%
Catch rate

The ball travels 4.3 yards in the air on an average throw 4.2 yards shorter than the median. Another 2.0 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
5
40% · 12y
2
0% · 0y
5
60% · 8y
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 · 2026 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume51
  • Dual-Threat0
  • Consistency50
  • Clutch34
Player type
Volume Passer

High-rep offense that leans on this QB's arm — value comes through cumulative production across a high number of plays.

High play countFranchise-volume role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+0.2300.23Wk 1 vs Iowa: -0.23 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Illinois State: -0.22 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@IowaL0-4018.04/101700-40-0.23
2vsIllinois StateL24-281/3301--30-0.22

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
17.7%
Passing plays
24.2%
Rushing plays
12.3%
Standard downs
12.9%
Passing downs
28.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.17
Passing downs
-0.20
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.20 / -0.14

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.