#10Hunter Najm

QB·Bowling Green·2025

Hunter Najm is a Dual-Threat QB for Bowling Green. Hunter's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 70 plays — a developing 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 Hunter Najm'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

Passing

33/66 Comp/Att473 Pass yards5 Pass TD4 INT50.0% Comp %

Rushing

21 Rush yards0 Rush TD15 Carries1.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume69
Dual-Threat100
Consistency34
Clutch76

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)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency34th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB 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.
▸Peak game: 1.54 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -37).

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
9	@Kent State	L21-24	-19.3	2/4	30	0	0	56.1	—	—	0.17
10	vsBuffalo	L3-28	-7.5	4/12	48	0	1	7.7	17	0	-0.32
11	@Eastern Michigan	L21-27	-14.7	11/15	129	1	1	85.7	9	0	0.37
13	vsAkron	L16-19	-13.9	9/26	138	1	2	6.1	-5	0	-0.23
14	@Massachusetts	W45-14	-36.6	7/9	128	3	0	99.1	—	—	1.54

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

24.3%

Passing plays

61.5%

Rushing plays

4.8%

Standard downs

16.1%

Passing downs

41.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.08
Passing downs: 0.26
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.21 / 0.44

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