Skip to content
Nathan Hayes

#2Nathan Hayes

Nathan Hayes is a Dual-Threat QB for North Dakota State. Nathan's 2026 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 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 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.

2026 Production

Passing
47/67 Comp/Att598 Pass yards6 Pass TD2 INT70.1% Comp %
Rushing
29 Rush yards1 Rush TD16 Carries1.8 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

65
Attempts
9.3y
Avg depth
5.3y
After catch
72%
Catch rate

The ball travels 9.3 yards in the air on an average throw 0.8 yards deeper than the median. Another 5.3 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
5
80% · 171y
1
0% · 0y
3
33% · 20y
short
18
67% · 102y
8
75% · 86y
30
80% · 219y
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 · 2026 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat77
  • Consistency50
  • 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
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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

+0.3100.31Wk 1 vs Fordham: +0.27 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Air Force: +0.31 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
0vsJacksonville StateW33-7-7.014/221602161.5140
1vsFordhamW38-018/2221020-200.27
2@Air ForceW38-321.115/23228211710.31

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
41.7%
Passing plays
92.1%
Rushing plays
10.2%
Standard downs
35.9%
Passing downs
56.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.12
Passing downs
0.60
Pass / Rush EPA
0.31 / 0.29

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.