Skip to content
Ajani Sheppard

#13Ajani Sheppard

Ajani Sheppard is a Dual-Threat QB for Temple.

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 Ajani Sheppard'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.

2026 Production

Passing
8/16 Comp/Att133 Pass yards0 Pass TD0 INT50.0% Comp %
Rushing
33 Rush yards1 Rush TD8 Carries4.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

16
Attempts
10.4y
Avg depth
8.4y
After catch
50%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.4 yards in the air on an average throw 1.9 yards deeper than the median. Another 8.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 39y
0
2
50% · 26y
short
3
33% · 6y
3
67% · 11y
6
50% · 51y
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 · 2026 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume57
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency50
  • Clutch52
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
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Peak game: 0.43 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Penn State (SP+ 20).

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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

+0.4300.43Wk 1 vs Rhode Island: +0.20 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Penn State: +0.43 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsRhode IslandW38-145/1085002300.20
2vsPenn StateL9-2719.83/648001010.43

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
19.8%
Passing plays
41.5%
Rushing plays
9.3%
Standard downs
18.8%
Passing downs
22.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.29
Passing downs
0.35
Pass / Rush EPA
0.01 / 1.04

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.