Skip to content
Tra Barnett

#5Tra Barnett

RB·Georgia State·20193.1 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Tra Barnett is a Featured Back for Georgia State. Tra's 2019 season ranks in the 45th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 237 plays — a average rate for the RB.

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 Tra Barnett'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.

2019 Production

Rushing
1453 Rush yards12 Rush TD248 Carries5.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
16 Receptions69 Rec yards0 Rec TD4.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2019 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency45
  • Volume81
  • Explosiveness58
  • Consistency77
  • Receiving34
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)45th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency77th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.20 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.67 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Arkansas State (SP+ -3).

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
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
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

+0.6700.67Wk 1 vs Tennessee: +0.28 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Furman: +0.27 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Western Michigan: +0.26 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Arkansas State: +0.67 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Coastal Carolina: +0.20 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Army: +0.29 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Troy: +0.31 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs UL Monroe: +0.26 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs App State: -0.02 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs South Alabama: +0.07 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Georgia Southern: +0.27 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs Wyoming: -0.07 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@TennesseeW38-3010.821954.5111200.28
2vsFurmanW48-429525.810.27
3@Western MichiganL10-57-4.9191276.7021000.26
4@Texas StateL34-37-16.212554.60
6vsArkansas StateW52-38-2.9141399.9121000.67
7@Coastal CarolinaW31-21-12.8201105.521300.20
8vsArmyW28-21-2.1171086.411200.29
9vsTroyW52-33-4.4342427.121200.31
11@UL MonroeL31-45-10.7321905.920.26
12vsApp StateL27-5611.317905.30330-0.02
13vsSouth AlabamaW28-15-20.3231285.6111000.07
14@Georgia SouthernL10-38-4.515533.5121400.27
1vsWyomingL17-38-1.115644.30230-0.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
28.3%
Passing plays
5.3%
Rushing plays
44.6%
Standard downs
34.2%
Passing downs
12.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.39
Pass / Rush EPA
0.15 / 0.25

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.750−0.15
EPA per play · 2019 · 12 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.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.