#2Jeff Sims

QB·Arizona State·2025

Jeff Sims is a Dual-Threat QB for Arizona State. Jeff's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 269 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 Jeff Sims'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

105/188 Comp/Att1261 Pass yards10 Pass TD6 INT55.9% Comp %

Rushing

522 Rush yards5 Rush TD100 Carries5.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat62
Consistency70
Clutch99

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 consistency70th %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.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.20 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.03 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Texas State (SP+ 2).

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
3	vsTexas State	W34-15	2.3	—	—	—	—	—	22	0	1.03
7	@Utah	L10-42	22.2	18/38	124	0	0	66.5	52	0	-0.05
8	vsTexas Tech	W26-22	27.6	—	—	—	—	—	3	0	0.24
9	vsHouston	L16-24	7.4	6/11	58	1	0	83.2	11	0	0.31
10	@Iowa State	W24-19	9.9	13/24	177	1	1	66.1	228	2	0.29
12	vsWest Virginia	W25-23	-6.8	19/28	207	3	0	75.0	81	0	0.24
13	@Colorado	W42-17	-8.3	11/24	206	2	1	41.6	12	0	0.23
14	vsArizona	L7-23	12.0	11/25	114	0	3	31.8	43	1	0.08
20	vsDuke	L39-42	6.6	27/38	375	3	1	85.0	70	2	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

44.4%

Passing plays

61.9%

Rushing plays

28.7%

Standard downs

37.9%

Passing downs

57.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.10
Passing downs: 0.39
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.28 / 0.21

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