Skip to content
Hunter Hopperton
Hunter Hopperton

#18Hunter Hopperton

Hunter Hopperton is a Pass-Catching Back for Kent State.

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 Hunter Hopperton'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

Receiving
5 Receptions38 Rec yards0 Rec TD7.6 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

7
Targets
3.0y
Avg depth
1.0y
After catch
100%
Catch rate

The ball travels 3.0 yards in the air on an average target 5.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 1.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
3
100% · 10y
1
100% · 5y
3
100% · 13y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs FB peers

  • Efficiency50
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness50
  • Consistency57
  • Receiving100
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)
Game-to-game consistency57th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.56 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Ball State (SP+ -23).

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

+0.5600.56Wk 1 vs Merrimack: +0.36 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Buffalo: +0.35 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida State: -0.33 EPA/play4Wk 11 vs Ball State: +0.56 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsMerrimackW21-1711100.36
3vsBuffaloL28-31-7.521100.35
4@Florida StateL10-667.2120-0.33
11@Ball StateL13-17-23.011400.56

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.3%
Passing plays
4.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.3%
Passing downs
2.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.11
Passing downs
0.49
Pass / Rush EPA
0.15 / —

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.