#3Tyree Jackson

QB·Buffalo·20185.8 pts line value

Tyree Jackson is a Dual-Threat QB for Buffalo. Tyree's 2018 season ranks in the 28th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 446 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 Tyree Jackson'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.

2018 Production

Passing

225/407 Comp/Att3131 Pass yards28 Pass TD12 INT55.3% Comp %

Rushing

161 Rush yards7 Rush TD55 Carries2.9 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2018 · vs QB peers

Efficiency28
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency80
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)28th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency80th %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 — 0.16 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.91 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Eastern Michigan (SP+ -2).

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	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsDelaware State	W48-10	—	17/27	189	6	0	—	—	0.68
2	@Temple	W36-29	2.9	26/45	275	3	1	3	0	0.35
3	vsEastern Michigan	W35-28	-2.0	21/26	325	3	0	—	—	0.91
4	@Rutgers	W42-13	-12.3	14/28	263	3	2	—	—	0.40
5	vsArmy	L13-42	-1.5	10/24	152	1	0	—	—	0.05
6	@Central Michigan	W34-24	-20.0	10/20	127	1	1	-2	1	0.21
7	vsAkron	W24-6	-19.3	16/30	212	1	1	57	1	0.40
8	@Toledo	W31-17	2.0	25/46	326	2	3	7	0	0.08
10	vsMiami (OH)	W51-42	-0.7	20/34	358	3	0	22	3	0.57
11	vsKent State	W48-14	-20.4	7/16	111	1	0	8	1	0.30
12	@Ohio	L17-52	4.0	9/21	116	0	2	70	1	0.29
13	@Bowling Green	W44-14	-22.0	12/20	151	1	1	2	0	0.18
14	vsNorthern Illinois	L29-30	-2.7	18/35	252	2	0	-2	0	0.19
1	vsTroy	L32-42	2.6	20/35	274	1	1	-4	0	0.23

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

45.6%

Passing plays

97.2%

Rushing plays

7.5%

Standard downs

40.0%

Passing downs

57.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.12
Passing downs: 0.63
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.28 / 0.77

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 · 2018 · 14 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.