Skip to content
Jaret Patterson

#26Jaret Patterson

RB·Buffalo·2020201920182.7 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Jaret Patterson is a 3-year Explosive Back for Buffalo. Jaret's 2018 season ranks in the 43th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 183 plays — a developing rate for the RB. Jaret's production has improved each season, a positive development trajectory.

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 Jaret Patterson'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.

2018 Production

Rushing
1013 Rush yards14 Rush TD183 Carries5.5 Yards/carry
Receiving
7 Receptions62 Rec yards0 Rec TD8.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2018 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency43
  • Volume54
  • Explosiveness50
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving20
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)43th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.26 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.86 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Bowling Green (SP+ -22).

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
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
Clyde Edwards-HelaireLSU0.4905.0105.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8600.86Wk 1 vs Delaware State: +0.09 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Temple: -0.40 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Eastern Michigan: -0.48 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Rutgers: +0.35 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Army: -0.40 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Central Michigan: +0.33 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Akron: +0.23 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Toledo: -0.07 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Miami (OH): +0.06 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kent State: +0.46 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ohio: -0.27 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Bowling Green: +0.86 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Northern Illinois: +0.33 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs Troy: +0.15 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsDelaware StateW48-109343.810.09
2@TempleW36-292.9122.00-0.40
3vsEastern MichiganW35-28-2.09353.90-0.48
4@RutgersW42-13-12.3141047.420.35
5vsArmyL13-42-1.5231.50-0.40
6@Central MichiganW34-24-20.0181216.7121000.33
7vsAkronW24-6-19.317915.4121000.23
8@ToledoW31-172.020904.52-0.07
10vsMiami (OH)W51-42-0.723964.210.06
11vsKent StateW48-14-20.41818710.420.46
12@OhioL17-524.08232.90-0.27
13@Bowling GreenW44-14-22.011888.020.86
14vsNorthern IllinoisL29-30-2.718724.0121900.33
1vsTroyL32-422.615674.5112300.15

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
18.9%
Passing plays
2.1%
Rushing plays
31.9%
Standard downs
21.4%
Passing downs
13.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.13
Passing downs
0.42
Pass / Rush EPA
0.28 / 0.19

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.040−0.6120192020
EPA per play · 2018 — 2020 · 33 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2018Buffalo
2.7
63.6
2019Buffalo
5.6
118.0
2020Buffalo
8.7
86.9

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.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.