Skip to content
Nathan Hayes

#2Nathan Hayes

Nathan Hayes is a Dual-Threat QB for North Dakota State.

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 Nathan Hayes'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
25/44 Comp/Att381 Pass yards4 Pass TD1 INT56.8% Comp %
Rushing
88 Rush yards1 Rush TD7 Carries12.6 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

43
Attempts
8.1y
Avg depth
4.0y
After catch
74%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.1 yards in the air on an average throw about the median for the position. Another 4.0 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
100% · 79y
0
2
50% · 20y
short
13
69% · 89y
5
80% · 35y
21
76% · 147y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume22
  • Dual-Threat89
  • Consistency32
  • Clutch100
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)8th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency32th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.54 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.48 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs South Dakota State.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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

+2.4802.48Wk 1 vs The Citadel: +1.31 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Tennessee State: -0.10 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Southeast Missouri State: -0.78 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs South Dakota: -0.66 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Southern Illinois: +0.95 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Indiana State: -0.10 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs South Dakota State: +2.48 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs Northern Iowa: +0.70 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs St. Thomas (MN): +0.45 EPA/play13Wk 15 vs Illinois State: -0.09 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@The CitadelW38-05/57110301.31
2@Tennessee StateW59-32/67211-0.10
3vsSoutheast Missouri StateW41-140/1000-0.78
5vsSouth DakotaW51-131/1000-0.66
7vsSouthern IllinoisW45-173/333000.95
8@Indiana StateW38-71/2120010-0.10
9@South Dakota StateW38-73902.48
12vsNorthern IowaW48-163/856003410.70
13vsSt. Thomas (MN)W62-78/1111820800.45
15vsIllinois StateL28-292/7190030-0.09

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.7%
Passing plays
18.2%
Rushing plays
1.6%
Standard downs
4.7%
Passing downs
15.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.06
Passing downs
0.79
Pass / Rush EPA
0.29 / 0.34

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.