Skip to content
Jordan Fuller
Jordan Fuller

#23Jordan Fuller

RB·James Madison·2025

Jordan Fuller is a Committee Back for James Madison. Jordan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 76 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Jordan Fuller'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

Rushing
415 Rush yards5 Rush TD82 Carries5.1 Yards/carry
Receiving
1 Receptions4 Rec yards0 Rec TD4.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume40
  • Explosiveness42
  • Consistency30
  • Receiving5
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency30th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • ▸Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • ▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.13 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 0.68 EPA/play in Wk 10 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

+0.680−0.68Wk 2 vs Louisville: +0.23 EPA/play2Wk 5 vs Georgia Southern: +0.55 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Georgia State: +0.18 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Louisiana: -0.14 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Old Dominion: -0.01 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Texas State: +0.68 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Marshall: -0.09 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs App State: -0.30 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
2@LouisvilleL14-2812.47314.40———0.23
5vsGeorgia SouthernW35-10-9.4161378.61———0.55
6@Georgia StateW14-7-24.518945.20———0.18
7vsLouisianaW24-14-10.112504.20140-0.14
8vsOld DominionW63-275.911282.51———-0.01
10@Texas StateW52-202.38465.82———0.68
11@MarshallW35-23-4.57243.41———-0.09
12vsApp StateW58-10-11.4351.70———-0.30

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
14.0%
Passing plays
0.4%
Rushing plays
23.3%
Standard downs
17.1%
Passing downs
7.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.06
Passing downs
0.42
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.16 / 0.12

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

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.