Skip to content
Sawyer Robertson
Sawyer Robertson

#13Sawyer Robertson

QB·Baylor·202520246.8 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Sawyer Robertson is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Baylor. Sawyer's 2025 season ranks in the 35th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 539 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 Sawyer Robertson'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

Passing
304/503 Comp/Att3681 Pass yards31 Pass TD12 INT60.4% Comp %
Rushing
17 Rush yards3 Rush TD56 Carries0.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency35
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency75
  • Clutch100
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)35th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
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.
  • 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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.75 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Oklahoma State (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

Historical Comparables · QB · 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
Jordan TravisFlorida State0.47610.1328.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.7500.75Wk 1 vs Auburn: +0.40 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs SMU: +0.49 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Samford: +0.19 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Arizona State: +0.27 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Oklahoma State: +0.75 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Kansas State: +0.42 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs TCU: +0.08 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Cincinnati: +0.25 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UCF: +0.38 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Utah: +0.10 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Arizona: -0.11 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Houston: -0.00 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsAuburnL24-3811.627/484193065.6-1900.40
2@SMUW48-4513.434/504404091.92000.49
3vsSamfordW42-723/372113241.21100.19
4vsArizona StateL24-273.925/392503171.3-900.27
5@Oklahoma StateW45-27-15.124/353934081.1610.75
6vsKansas StateW35-347.025/393452176.8200.42
8@TCUL36-428.325/523182340.6-1200.08
9@CincinnatiL20-414.518/261372067.9610.25
10vsUCFW30-3-1.229/402673087.0800.38
12vsUtahL28-5522.229/584303266.1100.10
13@ArizonaL17-4112.022/331621255.3-101-0.11
14vsHoustonL24-317.423/463091148.7130-0.00

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
60.9%
Passing plays
98.7%
Rushing plays
9.5%
Standard downs
55.1%
Passing downs
74.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.14
Passing downs
0.46
Pass / Rush EPA
0.25 / 0.74

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.350−0.242025
EPA per play · 2024 — 2025 · 24 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2024Baylor
8.3
224.8
2025Baylor
6.8
178.0

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.