Skip to content
Kareem Hunt

#3Kareem Hunt

RB·Toledo·2016201420132.8 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Kareem Hunt is a 3-year Featured Back for Toledo. Kareem's 2016 season ranks in the 28th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 268 plays — a developing rate for the RB. Kareem'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 Kareem Hunt'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.

Recruiting Profile· Class of 2013

3-Star · Developmental
Stars
247 composite
0.8033
National rank
#1,746
High school
South
Hometown
Willoughby, OH

Recruiting data from CFBD/247Sports composite. Sourced from the player's signing-class team — transfers show original school's class.

2016 Production

Rushing
1475 Rush yards10 Rush TD262 Carries5.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
41 Receptions403 Rec yards1 Rec TD9.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2016 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency28
  • Volume91
  • Explosiveness52
  • Consistency79
  • Receiving58
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)28th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency79th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.17 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.61 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Western Michigan (SP+ 12).

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
Breece HallIowa State0.3404.5102.3
Eno BenjaminArizona State0.3304.6104.3
Hassan HaskinsMichigan0.3804.8106.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6100.61Wk 1 vs Arkansas State: +0.18 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Maine: +0.07 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Fresno State: +0.25 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs BYU: +0.24 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.30 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Central Michigan: +0.01 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ohio: -0.01 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Akron: +0.55 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Northern Illinois: +0.35 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ball State: +0.54 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Western Michigan: +0.61 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs App State: +0.24 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@Arkansas StateW31-10-1.217784.6142600.18
2vsMaineW45-315664.401100.07
3vsFresno StateW52-17-16.9191236.510.25
5@BYUL53-558.0271465.4144900.24
6@Eastern MichiganW35-20-8.2291414.910.30
7vsBowling GreenW42-35-6.625994.013260
8vsCentral MichiganW31-17-6.120874.304900.01
9vsOhioL26-31-2.115503.306370-0.01
10@AkronW48-17-5.6171368.0122100.55
11vsNorthern IllinoisW31-24-2.4191226.4163700.35
12vsBall StateW37-19-7.0171076.3069810.54
13@Western MichiganL35-5511.52020010.0137300.61
1vsApp StateL28-319.2221205.5222600.24

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
31.8%
Passing plays
10.2%
Rushing plays
51.6%
Standard downs
35.6%
Passing downs
22.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.17
Passing downs
0.67
Pass / Rush EPA
0.56 / 0.22

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.790−0.9020142016
EPA per play · 2013 — 2016 · 33 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2013Toledo
2.0
20.0
2014Toledo
3.8
71.8
2016Toledo
2.8
71.6

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.