Skip to content
Will Hammond

#15Will Hammond

Will Hammond is a Dual-Threat QB for Texas Tech. Will's 2025 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 124 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 Will Hammond'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
68/108 Comp/Att668 Pass yards7 Pass TD3 INT63.0% Comp %
Rushing
299 Rush yards5 Rush TD43 Carries7.0 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

32
Attempts
5.6y
Avg depth
7.3y
After catch
81%
Catch rate

The ball travels 5.6 yards in the air on an average throw 2.2 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.3 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
0
1
100% · 64y
short
6
100% · 59y
10
70% · 103y
14
86% · 72y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume75
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency68
  • Clutch78
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)8th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency68th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 4 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 — 0.51 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.06 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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

+1.0601.06Wk 1 vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff: +1.06 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Kent State: +0.68 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oregon State: +0.07 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Utah: +0.73 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Houston: -0.29 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kansas: +0.25 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Arizona State: +0.11 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oklahoma State: +0.42 EPA/play9
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsArkansas-Pine BluffW67-77/9921098.06411.06
2vsKent StateW62-14-19.37/10941096.02710.68
3vsOregon StateW45-14-15.93/52015.01700.07
4@UtahW34-1022.213/161692096.36100.73
6@HoustonW35-117.410-0.29
7vsKansasW42-174.17/16420169.06120.25
8@Arizona StateL22-263.922/371672154.74710.11
9vsOklahoma StateW42-0-15.19/151021062.72100.42

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
26.2%
Passing plays
39.3%
Rushing plays
13.9%
Standard downs
21.8%
Passing downs
36.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.21
Passing downs
0.40
Pass / Rush EPA
0.20 / 0.55

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.