Skip to content
LJ Martin

#4LJ Martin

LJ Martin is a Explosive Back for BYU. LJ's 2026 season produced 5.4 total EPA across 31 plays.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

25%
projected
band 18%'25 32%32%

Regressed toward the RB mean. Model correlation r≈0.52 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

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 LJ Martin'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.

2026 Production

Rushing
152 Rush yards0 Rush TD27 Carries5.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
3 Receptions32 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency15
  • Volume69
  • Explosiveness52
  • Consistency50
  • Receiving60
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)15th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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

+0.1900.19Wk 1 vs Utah Tech: +0.13 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Arizona: +0.19 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsUtah TechW63-77547.701500.13
2vsArizonaW28-1712.620984.9022700.19

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
24.2%
Passing plays
8.0%
Rushing plays
36.5%
Standard downs
22.8%
Passing downs
29.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.21
Passing downs
0.07
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.07 / 0.21

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.090−0.26
EPA per play · 2025 · 13 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.

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