#3Layne Hatcher

QB·Ball State·2023

Layne Hatcher is a Dual-Threat QB for Ball State. Layne's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 92 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 Layne Hatcher'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.

2023 Production

Passing

65/98 Comp/Att583 Pass yards4 Pass TD0 INT66.3% Comp %

Rushing

-53 Rush yards1 Rush TD20 Carries-2.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume84
Dual-Threat93
Consistency0
Clutch38

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 consistency0th %ile · below avg

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 variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.37 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.70 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Kent State (SP+ -26).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	@Kentucky	L14-44	10.5	6/8	36	0	55.4	-13	1	0.11
2	@Georgia	L3-45	31.2	10/16	82	0	81.5	7	0	0.24
3	vsIndiana State	W45-7	—	0/1	0	0	0.0	-6	0	-0.60
5	@Western Michigan	L24-42	-15.9	26/37	316	3	52.7	-39	0	0.30
6	@Eastern Michigan	L10-24	-12.3	20/33	132	1	25.3	-2	0	-0.13
12	vsKent State	W34-3	-26.3	3/3	17	0	95.4	—	—	0.70

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

29.5%

Passing plays

54.8%

Rushing plays

5.9%

Standard downs

25.2%

Passing downs

37.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.11
Passing downs: 0.10
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.07 / 0.36

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