#8Justin Lamson

QB·Stanford·2024

Justin Lamson is a Dual-Threat QB for Stanford. Justin's 2024 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 76 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 Justin Lamson'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.

2024 Production

Passing

24/47 Comp/Att300 Pass yards4 Pass TD2 INT51.1% Comp %

Rushing

94 Rush yards8 Rush TD68 Carries1.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume39
Dual-Threat100
Consistency0
Clutch0

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.
▸5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.24 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.32 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs TCU (SP+ 11).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsTCU	L27-34	10.8	1/1	2	1	0	100.0	3	1	2.32
2	vsCal Poly	W41-7	—	—	—	—	—	—	11	1	0.02
4	@Syracuse	W26-24	5.5	—	—	—	—	—	2	0	0.34
5	@Clemson	L14-40	13.3	4/8	54	1	0	10.9	-11	0	-0.12
6	vsVirginia Tech	L7-31	10.0	13/24	103	0	1	20.2	36	0	-0.26
7	@Notre Dame	L7-49	23.9	2/4	13	0	0	83.7	2	1	0.31
8	vsSMU	L10-40	17.5	—	—	—	—	—	0	0	-3.35
9	vsWake Forest	L24-27	-5.7	—	—	—	—	—	1	1	0.94
10	@NC State	L28-59	3.9	3/8	103	1	1	17.3	25	1	0.11
12	vsLouisville	W38-35	13.6	1/1	25	1	0	100.0	3	0	1.75
13	@California	L21-24	4.0	0/1	0	0	0	82.1	14	2	0.65
14	@San José State	L31-34	-5.5	—	—	—	—	—	8	1	1.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

13.6%

Passing plays

12.7%

Rushing plays

14.5%

Standard downs

13.8%

Passing downs

13.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.43
Passing downs: -0.35
Pass / Rush EPA: -0.20 / 0.47

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