#11Caden Knighten

RB·Baylor·2025

Caden Knighten is a Committee Back for Baylor. Caden's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 104 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 Caden Knighten'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

Rushing

469 Rush yards1 Rush TD104 Carries4.5 Yards/carry

Receiving

11 Receptions134 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency0
Volume37
Explosiveness30
Consistency0
Receiving40

Player type

Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.20 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.86 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Oklahoma State (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Car	Rush Yds	Avg	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	EPA/play
1	vsAuburn	L24-38	11.6	6	29	4.8	0	1	4	1	0.40
2	@SMU	W48-45	13.4	7	26	3.7	0	2	11	0	-0.18
3	vsSamford	W42-7	—	10	34	3.4	1	3	28	0	0.35
4	vsArizona State	L24-27	3.9	4	5	1.3	0	1	10	0	-0.30
5	@Oklahoma State	W45-27	-15.1	5	81	16.2	0	1	39	0	0.86
6	vsKansas State	W35-34	7.0	5	-6	-1.2	0	1	15	0	-0.37
8	@TCU	L36-42	8.3	10	42	4.2	0	—	—	—	-0.17
9	@Cincinnati	L20-41	4.5	3	10	3.3	0	—	—	—	-0.59
10	vsUCF	W30-3	-1.2	21	104	5.0	0	1	22	0	0.30
12	vsUtah	L28-55	22.2	8	22	2.8	0	—	—	—	0.07
13	@Arizona	L17-41	12.0	17	100	5.9	0	—	—	—	0.10
14	vsHouston	L24-31	7.4	8	22	2.8	0	1	5	0	-0.12

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

12.8%

Passing plays

2.8%

Rushing plays

27.3%

Standard downs

14.6%

Passing downs

8.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.02
Passing downs: 0.35
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.15 / 0.09

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).