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)0.46Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
- EPA per play (efficiency)0.05Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
- Total EPA (value)0.51Beats 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 Brady Hart'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
Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers
- Efficiency0
- Volume21
- Dual-Threat51
- Consistency50
- Clutch87
A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.
- ▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
- ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
- ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
NIL Market Tier· 2025
On3 valuation ↗Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local deals.
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
Usage & Situational · Pro
- Standard downs
- -0.05
- Passing downs
- 0.18
- Pass / Rush EPA
- 0.04 / 0.15
Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).