Skip to content
J.T. Barrett

#16J.T. Barrett

QB·Ohio State·20172016201414.1 pts line value1st Round

J.T. Barrett is a 3-year Dual-Threat QB for Ohio State. J.T.'s 2017 season ranks in the 78th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 463 plays — a above-average 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.

2017 Production

Passing
240/371 Comp/Att3053 Pass yards35 Pass TD9 INT64.7% Comp %
Rushing
798 Rush yards12 Rush TD165 Carries4.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2017 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency78
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat92
  • Consistency82
  • Clutch73
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)78th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency82th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:→ Stable
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (78th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 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 — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.86 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Nebraska (SP+ 3).

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
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4
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

+0.8600.86Wk 1 vs Indiana: +0.41 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma: -0.01 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Army: +0.38 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs UNLV: +0.76 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Rutgers: +0.62 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Maryland: +0.58 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Nebraska: +0.86 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Penn State: +0.30 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Iowa: +0.19 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Michigan State: +0.48 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Illinois: +0.52 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan: +0.22 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Wisconsin: +0.23 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs USC: +0.11 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@IndianaW49-2110.220/353043076.76110.41
2vsOklahomaL16-3125.519/351830121.1660-0.01
3vsArmyW38-7-5.325/332702088.33210.38
4vsUNLVW54-21-14.512/172095098.81500.76
5@RutgersW56-0-5.515/232863093.57800.62
6vsMarylandW62-14-4.520/312613093.15910.58
7@NebraskaW56-142.527/333255098.34820.86
9vsPenn StateW39-3826.033/393284079.39500.30
10@IowaL24-559.818/342083433.26300.19
11vsMichigan StateW48-313.814/211832294.05520.48
12vsIllinoisW52-14-7.411/191412091.53310.52
13@MichiganW31-2019.63/8301070.96710.22
14vsWisconsinW27-2126.812/262112232.06010.23
1vsUSCW24-717.911/171140074.46620.11

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
50.9%
Passing plays
84.0%
Rushing plays
26.1%
Standard downs
47.4%
Passing downs
61.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
0.49
Pass / Rush EPA
0.39 / 0.36

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.