Skip to content
Marquese Williams
Marquese Williams

#24Marquese Williams

RB·Akron·2025

Marquese Williams is a Committee Back for Akron.

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 Marquese Williams'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
86 Rush yards0 Rush TD21 Carries4.1 Yards/carry
Receiving
3 Receptions12 Rec yards0 Rec TD4.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume28
  • Explosiveness22
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving59
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
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.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+0.2300.23Wk 1 vs Wyoming: -0.18 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nebraska: +0.01 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Duquesne: +0.23 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Toledo: -0.13 EPA/play5
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsWyomingL0-10-11.36305.00120-0.18
2@NebraskaL0-686.26244.000.01
4vsDuquesneW51-75244.8011500.23
5@ToledoL3-456.0482.001-50-0.13

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.9%
Passing plays
3.2%
Rushing plays
16.5%
Standard downs
11.8%
Passing downs
6.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.12
Passing downs
-0.86
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.23 / -0.35

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.