C.J. Carr

QB·Notre Dame·2025

C.J. Carr is a Dual-Threat QB for Notre Dame. C.J.'s 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 299 plays — a developing rate for the QB.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

40%

projected

band 22%'25 42%58%

Regressed toward the QB mean. Model correlation r≈0.46 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

2025 Production

Passing

195/293 Comp/Att2741 Pass yards24 Pass TD6 INT66.6% Comp %

Rushing

33 Rush yards3 Rush TD41 Carries0.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

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)3th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency71th %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.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸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 — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.27 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Purdue (SP+ -6).

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

EPA per play, by 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	@Miami	L24-27	20.7	19/30	221	2	1	61.8	16	1	0.28
3	vsTexas A&M	L40-41	20.7	20/32	293	1	1	81.0	-15	0	0.26
4	vsPurdue	W56-30	-6.1	10/12	223	2	0	90.0	0	0	1.27
5	@Arkansas	W56-13	5.1	22/30	354	4	0	98.1	0	0	0.90
6	vsBoise State	W28-7	3.1	15/23	189	2	0	74.7	25	0	0.28
7	vsNC State	W36-7	4.8	19/31	342	2	1	67.0	-10	0	0.34
8	vsUSC	W34-24	16.9	16/26	136	1	1	32.8	-7	1	-0.08
10	@Boston College	W25-10	-8.5	18/25	299	2	0	92.6	12	0	0.37
11	vsNavy	W49-10	6.2	13/16	218	3	0	98.5	—	—	0.84
12	@Pittsburgh	W37-15	8.4	21/32	212	2	2	62.0	7	1	0.04
13	vsSyracuse	W70-7	-13.1	5/9	49	1	0	62.6	-10	0	-0.11
14	@Stanford	W49-20	-11.8	17/27	205	2	0	90.0	15	0	0.43

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

42.1%

Passing plays

88.3%

Rushing plays

6.9%

Standard downs

37.4%

Passing downs

52.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.25
Passing downs: 0.59
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.37 / 0.47

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