Ja'Quez Cross
App State Mountaineers- Week 1
- vs Maine
- Sat, Sep 5 · 3:30 PM EDT
- Blended projection
- Rush yds 47
- League model
- Rushing projection
- 47.0 yds
- 12.9 to 74.0 · 20th to 80th
- Posted line
- None posted
- No capture names this player
- Best bets
- Not on board
- week 1 board
- Scheme Score
- Not graded
- No graded receiving market
- Season projection
- Not published
- No current custom-board row
- Position rank
- Unranked
- No overall rank
Availability is not an official reportResearch only, and NOT an official team injury report. Every designation here comes from a licensed depth chart or from a hand-reviewed news item with cited sources, so every row is UNVERIFIED relative to an official report: FBS teams publish no mandatory availability report for this to have been checked against. Each row states what its status rests on and when that source said it. Re-check an official inactives list before acting on any of it.A player who is not in this feed has NO availability source on disk. That is not the same as available, and it must not be rendered as one.4258 designations across 138 teams, from generation rotowire-depth-2026-c7dc3fd2170a, observed 2026-09-02T21:14:31Z.
Week 1: vs Maine
The blended passing, rushing, and receiving projections with their ranges and posted lines. Scheme Score stays beside the receiving markets it grades, and the player's Charting evidence is stated once.
Blended projection generationmarket snapshot eef1ca41d906 · training generation 7e4ed6004d69 · blended Sep 4, 5:29 PM ET / Sep 4, 2:29 PM PT2027 CFB/projections/2026_wk{week}_quantiles.csv.manifest.json
Scheme Score generationScheme Score 2026 week 1 · from scheme_scores_2026_week_1.json · generated 2026-09-04T21:39:41+00:00. 471 of 896 rows graded across 874 players. Lines as of Sep 4, 4:51 PM ET / Sep 4, 1:51 PM PT, prices withheld, not live.Scheme Score is a matchup grade, not a betting model and not a projection. Early-season grades run on prior-season scheme and personnel evidence, which our own backtesting says is context, not a validated predictor, so read every grade as matchup color rather than a proven advantage. From week 4 the board switches to current-season data; that version has not been separately validated either, so it stays matchup color.
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only.
Sources
How this projection was builtBlended
The model projection was shifted toward the vendor mean by the row’s blend weight. The quantile spacing is unchanged; only where the distribution sits moved.
Two independent projection vendors, named apart because they are different companies: RW (identity absent) and FP (identity cfbd_id).
Rushing yardsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 47.0yards
- Model, before the blend
- 50.4yards
- FP
- 40.7yards
Rushing yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -3.4 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Receiving yardsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 11.3yards
- Model, before the blend
- 13.2yards
- FP
- 7.7yards
Receiving yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -1.9 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Receptionsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 1.3catches
- Model, before the blend
- 1.5catches
- FP
- 0.9catches
Receptions is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -0.2 catches; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Blend weight comes from the receiving-role confirmation tier, which this row reads as thin. The tier is receiving-role evidence, so a passer or a pure rusher lands outside it and does not blend at the default weights.
Generationmarket snapshot eef1ca41d906 · training generation 7e4ed6004d69 · blended Sep 4, 5:29 PM ET / Sep 4, 2:29 PM PT
Shown for Ja'Quez Cross, week 1.
Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
No Charting profile could be safely matched to this player.Measured 2025 headline traits, stated once. The complete Charting ledger is further down; the weekly ledger only points back here.
Receiving back with league model weekly context and no published season-board rank.
- 5.8 model points per game across 1 covered games.
- Outcomes remain a distribution; rank and projection are not guarantees.
Week 1 vs Maine
41.6 median rushing yards · League model
Range ruler and position context
Exact published season bands and ranks. A missing bound stays missing.
2026 outlook, week by week
Every scheduled week with its kickoff, site, range, volume signal, basis, role, sources, and Scheme Score grade. The Charting evidence is stated once in the section above; each row points back to it. A week the grader has not published says so rather than borrowing another week's letter.
| Week | Opponent | Site | Kickoff | Rushing yards median | 20th–80th | Volume signal | Basis | Role | Sources | Scheme Score | Charting evidence | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Maine | Home | 41.6 | 12.9–74.0 | Rush yds 41.6 | League model | n/a | How this projection was builtBlendedThe model projection was shifted toward the vendor mean by the row’s blend weight. The quantile spacing is unchanged; only where the distribution sits moved. Two independent projection vendors, named apart because they are different companies: RW (identity absent) and FP (identity cfbd_id). Rushing yardsvendor weight 0.35
Rushing yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -3.4 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged. Receiving yardsvendor weight 0.35
Receiving yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -1.9 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged. Receptionsvendor weight 0.35
Receptions is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -0.2 catches; the quantile spacing is unchanged. Blend weight comes from the receiving-role confirmation tier, which this row reads as thin. The tier is receiving-role evidence, so a passer or a pure rusher lands outside it and does not blend at the default weights. Shown for Ja'Quez Cross, week 1. | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | |
| 2 | East Carolina | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 3 | Charlotte | Home | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 4 | NC State | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 6 | Old Dominion | Home | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 7 | Coastal Carolina | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 8 | James Madison | Home | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 9 | Georgia Southern | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 10 | Georgia State | Home | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 11 | Marshall | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 12 | UL Monroe | Home | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup | ||
| 13 | South Alabama | Away | Not published | Not published | Not published | Schedule only | n/a | Receiving markets Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with. | Charting evidence No Charting evidence | Matchup |
- Rushing yards
- 41.6
- 20th–80th
- 12.9–74.0
- Volume
- Rush yds 41.6
- Role
- Not graded
How this projection was builtBlended
The model projection was shifted toward the vendor mean by the row’s blend weight. The quantile spacing is unchanged; only where the distribution sits moved.
Two independent projection vendors, named apart because they are different companies: RW (identity absent) and FP (identity cfbd_id).
Rushing yardsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 47.0yards
- Model, before the blend
- 50.4yards
- FP
- 40.7yards
Rushing yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -3.4 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Receiving yardsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 11.3yards
- Model, before the blend
- 13.2yards
- FP
- 7.7yards
Receiving yards is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -1.9 yards; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Receptionsvendor weight 0.35
- Served projection
- 1.3catches
- Model, before the blend
- 1.5catches
- FP
- 0.9catches
Receptions is 35% vendor, 65% model, using FP. The mean moved -0.2 catches; the quantile spacing is unchanged.
Blend weight comes from the receiving-role confirmation tier, which this row reads as thin. The tier is receiving-role evidence, so a passer or a pure rusher lands outside it and does not blend at the default weights.
Shown for Ja'Quez Cross, week 1.
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
- Median
- Not published
- 20th–80th
- Not published
- Volume
- Not published
- Role
- Not graded
Scheme Score
Scheme Score grades receiving yards and receptions only
This projection publishes no receiving yards or receptions, so there is no Scheme Score market to pair it with.Charting evidence
No Charting evidence
2025 position traits and full record
Position-specific traits and written charting notes (pressure, depth, scheme, and alignment splits) lead into every defensible normalized Charting field, with measured window, artifact import, sample, and coverage kept explicit. Missing values remain unpublished.
No Charting profile could be safely matched to this player.
Evidence without blending
Model, historical context, and independent raw stats remain separately labeled from ingestion through display.
1 weekly model forecast
As of 2026-09-04T21:38:52.843849+00:000 labeled context rows
As of 2026-09-04T21:38:52.843849+00:00Unresolved identities remain quarantined
Independent projectionSeason row not published
- Season rank
- n/a
- Position rank
- n/a
- Weekly model rows
- 1
- Value over replacement
- n/a
Season-board and weekly-model results remain distinct; they are never averaged.
2025 · Arkansas State
- Rush attempts
- 8
- Rushing yards
- 36
- Rushing TD
- 1
- Receptions
- 5
1 games · 36 historical rushing yards. Prior production is context, not the 2026 model forecast.
No raw-stat row matched this player, team, and position.
Related RB profiles
Nearby season-board ranks at the same position, with same-team players preferred when available.
Where to go next
This profile connects the player to the best bets board, this week's matchup report, the team report, and the wider player board.
Methodology and data boundary
The current custom half-PPR season board uses six-point passing touchdowns and one point per 20 passing yards. Its season ranks and ranges stay separate from the full-PPR weekly distributions. Posted lines are dated captures shown with their capture count and time; the operator that quoted each number stays in the source record and is never published. Recruiting priors and recent-form baselines are labeled context and excluded from betting-facing model surfaces. Projection source C contributes raw stats only; its scoring points, rank, ownership, and roster fields are excluded. The RW Week 1 projection is displayed as an independent comparison and receives no automatic blend weight. Its retained local file time is disclosure metadata, not provider publication time. Charting grades and charting metrics measure the 2025 season; any embedded League projection context is shown separately. When present, observed Week 1 passing and target views come from a separately pinned cfbfastR/SportsDataverse generation and do not update either projection. No missing range or game prediction is inferred.
- Season model
- custom-fantasy-2026-half_ppr_6pt_td_20pass-usage_aware-5b1c102afd16
- Weekly model
- cfb-fantasy-quantile-2026.1
- Best bets board
- Week 1 · 0 rows here
- Observed update
- No completed-game layer
- RW Week 1
- No resolved row
- Current market rows
- No resolved row