Skip to content
Parker Jenkins

#3Parker Jenkins

Parker Jenkins is a Committee Back for Houston.

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 Parker Jenkins'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

Rushing
34 Rush yards0 Rush TD17 Carries2.0 Yards/carry
Receiving
3 Receptions7 Rec yards0 Rec TD2.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume20
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency69
  • Receiving61
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 consistency69th %ile · average
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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

+0.9000.90Wk 1 vs UNLV: +0.16 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma: -0.28 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Rice: -0.11 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Cincinnati: -0.90 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Iowa State: -0.77 EPA/play5
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsUNLVL7-279.32178.502800.16
2@OklahomaL12-169.57101.40-0.28
3vsRiceW33-7-11.4263.00-0.11
4@CincinnatiL0-34-0.1351.701-10-0.90
5vsIowa StateL0-2010.33-4-1.30-0.77

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.9%
Passing plays
2.3%
Rushing plays
11.0%
Standard downs
7.6%
Passing downs
5.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.49
Passing downs
-0.25
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.90 / -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.