Skip to content
Blake Watson

#4Blake Watson

Blake Watson is a Pass-Catching Back for Memphis. Blake's 2023 season ranks in the 20th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 234 plays — a developing 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 Blake Watson'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.

2023 Production

Rushing
1152 Rush yards14 Rush TD192 Carries6.0 Yards/carry
Receiving
53 Receptions485 Rec yards3 Rec TD9.2 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns5 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency20
  • Volume77
  • Explosiveness60
  • Consistency61
  • Receiving75
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)20th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency61th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.09 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.69 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Temple (SP+ -21).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

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
Donnel PumphreySan Diego State0.3204.2110.1
Eno BenjaminArizona State0.3304.6104.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6900.69Wk 1 vs Bethune-Cookman: +0.64 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Arkansas State: -0.17 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Navy: +0.69 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Missouri: +0.19 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Boise State: +0.20 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Tulane: -0.33 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UAB: +0.46 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs North Texas: +0.61 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs South Florida: -0.00 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Charlotte: +0.00 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs SMU: +0.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Temple: +0.69 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsBethune-CookmanW56-1410757.5353700.64
2@Arkansas StateW37-3-6.320512.604250-0.17
3vsNavyW28-24-13.71016916.9166800.69
4vsMissouriL27-3419.318472.6098310.19
5vsBoise StateW35-325.9191135.9222000.20
7vsTulaneL21-312.85132.60-0.33
8@UABW45-21-14.7211256.0131500.46
9@North TexasW45-42-6.7171699.92510000.61
10vsSouth FloridaW59-50-6.610646.41140-0.00
11@CharlotteW44-38-21.422833.8284110.00
12vsSMUL34-3810.110414.1133100.15
13@TempleW45-21-21.015956.3143910.69
20@Iowa StateW36-267.5151077.103220

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
27.0%
Passing plays
11.1%
Rushing plays
46.5%
Standard downs
30.1%
Passing downs
18.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.19
Passing downs
0.57
Pass / Rush EPA
0.70 / 0.13

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.