#5Rodney Tisdale Jr.

QB·Western Kentucky·2025

Rodney Tisdale Jr. is a Dual-Threat QB for Western Kentucky. Rodney's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 252 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 Rodney Tisdale Jr.'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

139/212 Comp/Att1432 Pass yards9 Pass TD7 INT65.6% Comp %

Rushing

108 Rush yards2 Rush TD52 Carries2.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

Attempts

6.8y

Avg depth

3.8y

After catch

60%

Catch rate

The ball travels 6.8 yards in the air on an average throw — 1.0 yards shorter than the median. Another 3.8 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

—

50% · 26y

0% · 0y

short

63% · 40y

67% · 24y

64% · 113y

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

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat74
Consistency69
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)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency69th %ile · average

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.
▸4 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 — 0.40 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.93 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs North Alabama.

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsNorth Alabama	W55-6	—	6/8	94	1	0	59.1	7	0	0.93
8	vsFlorida International	L6-25	-10.5	7/8	66	0	0	87.7	5	0	0.53
9	@Louisiana Tech	W28-27	-1.3	21/34	227	1	1	83.3	73	0	0.49
10	vsNew Mexico State	W35-16	-15.5	30/38	301	4	1	47.9	28	0	0.12
12	vsMiddle Tennessee	W42-26	-16.0	29/41	371	3	1	72.4	10	1	0.47
13	@LSU	L10-13	10.3	20/39	128	0	2	24.4	-32	0	-0.27
14	@Jacksonville State	L34-37	-6.7	17/24	180	0	1	51.5	14	1	0.15
20	vsSouthern Miss	W27-16	-7.1	9/20	65	0	1	11.9	3	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

45.5%

Passing plays

71.1%

Rushing plays

15.5%

Standard downs

40.9%

Passing downs

55.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.09
Passing downs: 0.56
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.17 / 0.27

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