#10Hunter Watson

QB·Sam Houston·2025

Hunter Watson is a Dual-Threat QB for Sam Houston. Hunter's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 231 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 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

Passing

104/182 Comp/Att1108 Pass yards5 Pass TD4 INT57.1% Comp %

Rushing

276 Rush yards2 Rush TD74 Carries3.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat65
Consistency0
Clutch3

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 consistency0th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.28 from the first to second half of the season.

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
0	@Western Kentucky	L24-41	1.6	19/30	209	0	1	41.3	91	1	—
1	vsUNLV	L21-38	4.3	11/22	101	0	0	47.7	17	1	-0.08
4	@Texas	L0-55	16.2	13/25	86	0	1	20.6	32	0	-0.21
6	@New Mexico State	L10-37	-15.5	22/34	222	1	1	22.8	16	0	-0.04
7	vsJacksonville State	L27-29	-6.7	12/19	136	3	0	44.5	52	0	0.22
8	vsUTEP	L17-35	-17.5	13/19	161	1	0	58.7	3	0	0.22
10	@Louisiana Tech	L14-55	-1.3	14/33	193	0	1	21.9	65	0	-0.05

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

56.2%

Passing plays

80.5%

Rushing plays

26.3%

Standard downs

50.0%

Passing downs

66.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.14
Passing downs: -0.05
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.03 / 0.22

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