#6Ben Hicks

QB·SMU·20177.3 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Ben Hicks is a Dual-Threat QB for SMU. Ben's 2017 season ranks in the 35th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 489 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 Ben Hicks'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.

2017 Production

Passing

276/472 Comp/Att3569 Pass yards33 Pass TD12 INT58.5% Comp %

Rushing

47 Rush yards1 Rush TD54 Carries0.9 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2017 · vs QB peers

Efficiency35
Volume100
Dual-Threat92
Consistency71
Clutch97

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 consistency71th %ile · average

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.
▸8 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 — 0.12 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.61 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Tulane (SP+ -6).

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Stetson Bennett	Georgia	2022	509	0.635	12.5	323.0
Jordan Travis	Florida State	2021	690	0.476	10.1	328.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsStephen F. Austin	W58-14	—	9/19	112	2	0	86.2	—	—	0.22
2	vsNorth Texas	W54-32	-4.5	20/39	312	4	1	83.6	-7	0	0.44
3	@TCU	L36-56	18.9	17/37	305	2	2	49.7	-6	0	0.48
4	vsArkansas State	W44-21	1.5	16/32	266	2	0	72.1	-1	1	0.52
5	vsUConn	W49-28	-19.2	27/37	280	4	0	84.3	-15	0	0.51
6	@Houston	L22-35	7.7	41/58	397	1	2	53.7	0	0	0.10
8	@Cincinnati	W31-28	-6.4	26/37	295	2	1	86.9	-32	0	0.34
9	vsTulsa	W38-34	-10.7	19/32	338	2	0	86.3	30	0	0.45
10	vsUCF	L24-31	14.1	27/51	283	1	0	55.8	54	0	0.14
11	@Navy	L40-43	-0.7	16/29	261	4	1	77.4	14	0	0.49
12	@Memphis	L45-66	7.8	15/34	218	4	0	75.7	25	0	0.47
13	vsTulane	W41-38	-5.7	24/33	375	4	2	89.3	17	0	0.61
1	vsLouisiana Tech	L10-51	-5.5	19/34	127	1	3	1.0	-32	0	-0.61

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

53.1%

Passing plays

97.0%

Rushing plays

7.5%

Standard downs

43.4%

Passing downs

74.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.20
Passing downs: 0.49
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.32 / 0.36

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 · 2017 · 13 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.