Skip to content
J.T. Barrett

#16J.T. Barrett

QB·Ohio State·2017201620147.5 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

J.T. Barrett is a 3-year Dual-Threat QB for Ohio State. J.T.'s 2016 season ranks in the 13th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 516 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 J.T. Barrett'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.

2016 Production

Passing
233/379 Comp/Att2555 Pass yards24 Pass TD7 INT61.5% Comp %
Rushing
845 Rush yards9 Rush TD205 Carries4.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2016 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency13
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat78
  • Consistency72
  • Clutch100
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)13th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency72th %ile · average
Career trajectory:→ Stable
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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.64 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Rutgers (SP+ -15).

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
Jordan TravisFlorida State0.47610.1328.3
Kyle McCordSyracuse0.50912.1321.4
Sam HartmanWake Forest0.55611.8359.6
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6400.64Wk 1 vs Bowling Green: +0.49 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Tulsa: +0.10 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oklahoma: +0.33 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Rutgers: +0.64 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Indiana: +0.13 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Wisconsin: +0.38 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Penn State: +0.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Northwestern: +0.32 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Nebraska: +0.58 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Maryland: +0.33 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Michigan State: +0.00 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan: +0.01 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Clemson: -0.23 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsBowling GreenW77-10-6.621/313496189.33010.49
2vsTulsaW48-37.414/221490018.05520.10
3@OklahomaW45-2426.114/201524080.67400.33
5vsRutgersW58-0-14.921/292384187.14600.64
6vsIndianaW38-174.69/21931135.513710.13
7@WisconsinW30-2316.117/292261175.39220.38
8@Penn StateL21-2419.028/432451047.42600.18
9vsNorthwesternW24-202.921/322230069.67100.32
10vsNebraskaW62-310.326/382904091.93900.58
11@MarylandW62-3-0.618/272532092.34720.33
12@Michigan StateW17-167.410/22861040.110500.00
13vsMichiganW30-2724.415/321240138.212510.01
1vsClemsonL0-3128.719/331270215.2-20-0.23

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
57.7%
Passing plays
92.8%
Rushing plays
31.9%
Standard downs
49.7%
Passing downs
76.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.07
Passing downs
0.45
Pass / Rush EPA
0.19 / 0.29

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.970−0.3420162017
EPA per play · 2014 — 2017 · 39 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2014Ohio State
11.0
292.3
2016Ohio State
7.5
250.1
2017Ohio State
14.1
341.6

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.