Skip to content
Jeff Sims

#2Jeff Sims

Jeff Sims is a Dual-Threat QB for Nebraska. Jeff's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 81 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 Jeff Sims'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.

2023 Production

Passing
28/47 Comp/Att282 Pass yards1 Pass TD6 INT59.6% Comp %
Rushing
189 Rush yards1 Rush TD42 Carries4.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume77
  • Dual-Threat71
  • Consistency0
  • Clutch100
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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.39 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Colorado (SP+ -5).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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

+0.5200.52Wk 1 vs Minnesota: +0.22 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Colorado: +0.39 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.52 EPA/play4Wk 9 vs Purdue: -0.41 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Maryland: +0.07 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@MinnesotaL10-130.411/191141336.99100.22
2@ColoradoL14-36-4.99/151060134.06710.39
4vsLouisiana TechW28-14-12.9-20-0.52
9vsPurdueW31-14-7.300-0.41
11vsMarylandL10-1311.08/1362029.53300.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
27.1%
Passing plays
48.4%
Rushing plays
18.2%
Standard downs
25.5%
Passing downs
30.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.10
Passing downs
0.43
Pass / Rush EPA
0.18 / 0.25

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.