#11Jackson Arnold

QB·Auburn·2025

Jackson Arnold is a Dual-Threat QB for Auburn. Jackson's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 316 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 Jackson Arnold'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

136/215 Comp/Att1309 Pass yards6 Pass TD2 INT63.3% Comp %

Rushing

311 Rush yards8 Rush TD112 Carries2.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency48
Clutch10

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 consistency48th %ile · average

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.
▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.64 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Mercer.

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
1	@Baylor	W38-24	1.4	11/17	108	0	0	93.7	137	2	0.56
2	vsBall State	W42-3	-23.0	24/28	251	3	0	70.2	5	0	0.47
3	vsSouth Alabama	W31-15	-12.7	13/24	142	1	0	86.0	50	2	0.49
4	@Oklahoma	L17-24	18.3	21/32	220	1	0	71.5	-11	0	0.10
5	@Texas A&M	L10-16	20.7	18/33	125	0	0	35.1	11	1	-0.17
7	vsGeorgia	L10-20	24.1	19/31	137	0	0	52.2	55	1	0.05
8	vsMissouri	L17-23	14.4	18/30	207	0	1	41.5	14	1	0.03
9	@Arkansas	W33-24	5.1	7/12	73	1	1	14.3	9	0	-0.09
10	vsKentucky	L3-10	1.8	2/3	15	0	0	3.0	-12	0	-0.29
13	vsMercer	W62-17	—	3/5	31	0	0	67.6	53	1	0.64

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

49.0%

Passing plays

77.6%

Rushing plays

23.9%

Standard downs

43.7%

Passing downs

61.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.20
Passing downs: 0.05
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.07 / 0.42

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