Skip to content
Quincy Craig

#24Quincy Craig

Quincy Craig is a Committee Back for Arizona. Quincy's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

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 Quincy Craig'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
364 Rush yards2 Rush TD65 Carries5.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
14 Receptions114 Rec yards1 Rec TD8.1 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns43 KR yards0 KR TD

Air yards

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

6
Targets
1.3y
Avg depth
7.4y
After catch
83%
Catch rate

The ball travels 1.3 yards in the air on an average target 7.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.4 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
2
100% · 20y
2
50% · 7y
2
100% · 14y
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 RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume30
  • Explosiveness52
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving66
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.24 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.32 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Kansas (SP+ 4).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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

+1.3201.32Wk 1 vs Hawai'i: +1.27 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Weber State: +0.08 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kansas State: -0.14 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Iowa State: -0.19 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Oklahoma State: +0.47 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs BYU: +0.08 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Houston: -0.91 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Colorado: +0.18 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kansas: +1.32 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cincinnati: -0.06 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Arizona State: -0.42 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsHawai'iW40-61.7712517.911.27
2vsWeber StateW48-38313.901600.08
3vsKansas StateW23-177.0393.00-0.14
5@Iowa StateL14-399.9461.50160-0.19
6vsOklahoma StateW41-13-15.132400.47
7vsBYUL27-3315.96366.0021100.08
8@HoustonL28-317.4221.00-0.91
10@ColoradoW52-17-8.37253.6011000.18
11vsKansasW24-204.134715.7121311.32
12@CincinnatiW30-244.511524.702160-0.06
14@Arizona StateW23-73.9420.502280-0.42
20vsSMUL19-2413.410292.90

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.4%
Passing plays
3.8%
Rushing plays
18.0%
Standard downs
11.3%
Passing downs
8.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.06
Passing downs
0.36
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / 0.05

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.