Skip to content
Hendon Hooker

#5Hendon Hooker

QB·Tennessee·2022202111.7 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Hendon Hooker is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Tennessee. Hendon's 2022 season ranks in the 88th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 417 plays — a above-average rate for the QB.

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)0.46
    Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.05
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.51
    Beats 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 Hendon Hooker'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.

2022 Production

Passing
229/329 Comp/Att3135 Pass yards27 Pass TD2 INT69.6% Comp %
Rushing
430 Rush yards5 Rush TD104 Carries4.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2022 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency88
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency84
  • Clutch43
Player type
Dual-Threat QB

A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.

Rushing threatScrambles for valueStresses defensive structure
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)88th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency84th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (88th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.14 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.07 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Akron (SP+ -23).

NIL Market Tier· 2022

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 · QB · 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
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0701.07Wk 1 vs Ball State: +0.61 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: +0.27 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Akron: +1.07 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida: +0.52 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs LSU: +0.49 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Alabama: +0.48 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UT Martin: +0.81 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Kentucky: +0.45 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Georgia: -0.04 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Missouri: +0.64 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs South Carolina: +0.40 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsBall StateW59-10-14.918/252212079.91220.61
2@PittsburghW34-278.627/423252082.52700.27
3vsAkronW63-6-23.414/182982088.02401.07
4vsFloridaW38-3310.422/283492096.911210.52
6@LSUW40-1316.217/272392092.25600.49
7vsAlabamaW52-4930.321/303855194.35600.48
8vsUT MartinW65-2418/242763090.62800.81
9vsKentuckyW44-613.019/252453089.92310.45
10@GeorgiaL13-2735.323/331950160.7170-0.04
11vsMissouriW66-248.125/353553095.45010.64
12@South CarolinaL38-6312.725/422473082.92500.40

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
52.2%
Passing plays
88.8%
Rushing plays
18.9%
Standard downs
48.5%
Passing downs
64.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.45
Passing downs
0.46
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / 0.51

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.180−0.162022
EPA per play · 2021 — 2022 · 24 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021Tennessee
11.3
289.1
2022Tennessee
11.7
268.4

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.