#5Phil Jurkovec

QB·Pittsburgh·2023 2020

Phil Jurkovec is a Dual-Threat QB for Pittsburgh. Phil's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 142 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 Phil Jurkovec'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.

2023 Production

Passing

57/112 Comp/Att818 Pass yards6 Pass TD3 INT50.9% Comp %

Rushing

60 Rush yards1 Rush TD39 Carries1.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency65
Clutch42

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 consistency65th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.61 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.53 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Florida State (SP+ 19).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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	vsWofford	W45-7	—	17/23	214	1	0	73.6	41	1	0.45
2	vsCincinnati	L21-27	-6.8	10/32	179	3	0	42.3	0	0	-0.05
3	@West Virginia	L6-17	7.5	8/20	81	0	3	10.3	35	0	0.02
4	vsNorth Carolina	L24-41	7.4	11/15	109	0	0	69.6	5	0	0.39
5	@Virginia Tech	L21-38	5.8	11/22	235	2	0	27.3	-22	0	0.33
10	vsFlorida State	L7-24	19.4	—	—	—	—	—	1	0	1.53

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

41.3%

Passing plays

65.9%

Rushing plays

15.3%

Standard downs

32.9%

Passing downs

57.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.19
Passing downs: 0.20
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.13 / 0.51

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2020 · 10 games

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.