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 Henry Hasselbeck'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.
2026 Production
Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs QB peers
- Efficiency0
- Volume19
- Dual-Threat17
- Consistency50
- Clutch100
Elevates on passing downs — 3rd-and-medium, two-minute drills, and pressure situations are where this QB is best.
- ▸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.
- ▸Peak game: 0.95 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Maine.
NIL Market Tier· 2026
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
- -0.17
- Passing downs
- 0.13
- Pass / Rush EPA
- — / -0.02
Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).