Skip to content
Jordan Washington
Jordan Washington

#4Jordan Washington

Jordan Washington is a Explosive Back for Washington.

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 Washington'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
233 Rush yards1 Rush TD27 Carries8.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume16
  • Explosiveness100
  • Consistency57
  • Receiving0
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency57th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among RBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 1.23 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.93 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Purdue (SP+ -6).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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

+1.9301.93Wk 1 vs Colorado State: +0.06 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UC Davis: -0.06 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Washington State: -0.17 EPA/play4Wk 9 vs Illinois: +0.88 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs Purdue: +1.93 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs UCLA: +0.41 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDEPA/play
1vsColorado StateW38-21-15.64153.800.06
2vsUC DavisW70-106335.50-0.06
4@Washington StateW59-243.8133.00-0.17
9vsIllinoisW42-2512.93165.300.88
12vsPurdueW49-13-6.1510821.611.93
13@UCLAW48-14-8.74338.300.41
20vsBoise StateW38-103.14256.30

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.7%
Passing plays
0.0%
Rushing plays
10.2%
Standard downs
5.7%
Passing downs
5.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.73
Passing downs
0.36
Pass / Rush EPA
— / 0.61

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.