Skip to content
Daniel Hishaw Jr.
Daniel Hishaw Jr.

#9Daniel Hishaw Jr.

Daniel Hishaw Jr. is a Committee Back for Kansas. Daniel's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 135 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 Daniel Hishaw Jr.'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
587 Rush yards5 Rush TD124 Carries4.7 Yards/carry
Receiving
6 Receptions33 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume58
  • Explosiveness34
  • Consistency26
  • Receiving27
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)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency26th %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.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.12 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.44 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Wagner.

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

+0.4600.46Wk 1 vs Wagner: +0.44 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Missouri: -0.46 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs West Virginia: -0.05 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Texas Tech: +0.20 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Kansas State: +0.03 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oklahoma State: +0.30 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Arizona: -0.03 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Iowa State: +0.24 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Utah: +0.22 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
0vsFresno StateW31-71.813695.30150
1vsWagnerW46-714896.410.44
2@MissouriL31-4214.46111.801-20-0.46
4vsWest VirginiaW41-10-6.8294.50-0.05
7@Texas TechL17-4227.68536.600.20
9vsKansas StateL17-427.019673.5132800.03
10vsOklahoma StateW38-21-15.114654.620.30
11@ArizonaL20-2412.018673.70120-0.03
13@Iowa StateL14-389.98506.300.24
14vsUtahL21-3122.2221074.910.22

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
20.3%
Passing plays
3.0%
Rushing plays
35.8%
Standard downs
23.0%
Passing downs
13.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.11
Passing downs
0.30
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.24 / 0.17

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.