#26Duke Watson

RB·Louisville·2025

Duke Watson is a Committee Back for Louisville. Duke's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 56 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 Duke 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.

2025 Production

Rushing

158 Rush yards1 Rush TD49 Carries3.2 Yards/carry

Receiving

6 Receptions49 Rec yards1 Rec TD8.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency0
Volume35
Explosiveness4
Consistency0
Receiving46

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.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.12 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.48 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs SMU (SP+ 13).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Contributor

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

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	vsEastern Kentucky	W51-17	—	2	2	1.0	0	1	30	1	0.37
2	vsJames Madison	W28-14	12.3	7	13	1.9	0	—	—	—	-0.15
5	@Pittsburgh	W34-27	8.4	14	47	3.4	0	1	3	0	-0.24
6	vsVirginia	L27-30	11.1	1	2	2.0	0	1	6	0	-0.28
11	vsCalifornia	L26-29	-3.2	8	19	2.4	1	—	—	—	0.18
12	vsClemson	L19-20	9.5	11	39	3.5	0	2	4	0	-0.31
13	@SMU	L6-38	13.4	6	36	6.0	0	1	6	0	0.48

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

12.3%

Passing plays

3.1%

Rushing plays

25.1%

Standard downs

14.6%

Passing downs

7.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.12
Passing downs: 0.02
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.02 / -0.11

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