Skip to content
Joe Jackson

#4Joe Jackson

Joe Jackson is a Featured Back for Kansas State. Joe's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 200 plays — a developing 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 Joe Jackson'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
911 Rush yards8 Rush TD169 Carries5.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
22 Receptions119 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.4 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

7
Targets
2.3y
Avg depth
14.0y
After catch
86%
Catch rate

The ball travels 2.3 yards in the air on an average target 6.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 14.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
2
50% · 43y
2
100% · 26y
3
100% · 27y
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

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume80
  • Explosiveness48
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving60
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.22 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.67 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Utah (SP+ 22).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

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

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6700.67Wk 1 vs North Dakota: -0.36 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Army: -0.28 EPA/play2Wk 5 vs UCF: -0.01 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Baylor: +0.30 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs TCU: -0.09 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Kansas: -0.14 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Texas Tech: -0.22 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Oklahoma State: +0.10 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Utah: +0.67 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Colorado: +0.26 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
0vsIowa StateL21-249.912514.30170
1vsNorth DakotaW38-3511555.00161-0.36
2vsArmyL21-240.87304.30150-0.28
5vsUCFW34-20-1.2561.212120-0.01
6@BaylorL34-351.413614.7054100.30
7vsTCUW41-288.3271104.10230-0.09
9@KansasW42-174.120693.50210-0.14
10vsTexas TechL20-4327.610252.503140-0.22
12@Oklahoma StateW14-6-15.114694.9131200.10
13@UtahL47-5122.22429312.2311900.67
14vsColoradoW24-14-8.3261425.531-100.26

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
28.0%
Passing plays
9.3%
Rushing plays
45.3%
Standard downs
29.5%
Passing downs
25.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.12
Passing downs
0.04
Pass / Rush EPA
0.01 / 0.12

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.