#14TJ Lateef

QB·Nebraska·2025

TJ Lateef is a Dual-Threat QB for Nebraska. TJ's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 110 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 TJ Lateef'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

74/123 Comp/Att904 Pass yards5 Pass TD1 INT60.2% Comp %

Rushing

120 Rush yards4 Rush TD40 Carries3.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume99
Dual-Threat64
Consistency52
Clutch63

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 consistency52th %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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.69 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.43 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Houston Christian.

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
2	vsAkron	W68-0	-13.9	6/7	128	0	0	99.5	17	1	0.95
3	vsHouston Christian	W59-7	—	5/5	126	1	0	99.2	15	1	1.43
10	vsUSC	L17-21	16.9	5/7	7	0	0	0.4	18	0	-0.52
11	@UCLA	W28-21	-8.7	13/15	205	3	0	98.7	31	0	0.89
13	@Penn State	L10-37	18.1	21/37	187	0	0	53.3	15	1	0.04
14	vsIowa	L16-40	19.7	9/24	69	0	0	42.1	2	0	-0.16
20	vsUtah	L22-44	22.2	15/28	182	1	1	54.5	22	1	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

34.6%

Passing plays

62.6%

Rushing plays

13.3%

Standard downs

29.4%

Passing downs

51.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.07
Passing downs: 0.18
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.08 / 0.22

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