#16Athan Kaliakmanis

QB·Minnesota·2025 2023

Athan Kaliakmanis is a Dual-Threat QB for Minnesota. Athan's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 337 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 Athan Kaliakmanis'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.

2023 Production

Passing

156/294 Comp/Att1838 Pass yards14 Pass TD9 INT53.1% Comp %

Rushing

94 Rush yards2 Rush TD74 Carries1.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat91
Consistency59
Clutch91

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 consistency59th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.82 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Northwestern (SP+ -1).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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	vsNebraska	W13-10	0.3	24/44	196	1	1	54.2	5	0	0.13
2	vsEastern Michigan	W25-6	-12.3	10/15	117	0	1	58.9	10	1	0.19
3	@North Carolina	L13-31	7.4	11/29	133	0	1	28.6	26	0	-0.16
4	@Northwestern	L34-37	-1.3	14/19	153	2	0	85.0	34	0	0.82
5	vsLouisiana	W35-24	0.4	12/14	146	2	1	91.4	17	1	0.81
6	vsMichigan	L10-52	31.3	5/15	52	1	2	5.3	-9	0	-0.15
8	@Iowa	W12-10	5.8	10/25	126	0	0	41.6	-7	0	0.05
9	vsMichigan State	W27-12	-6.8	14/22	200	1	1	69.8	-1	0	0.20
10	vsIllinois	L26-27	-2.5	11/22	167	3	0	57.7	4	0	0.45
11	@Purdue	L30-49	-7.3	18/42	292	3	0	56.7	0	0	0.25
12	@Ohio State	L3-37	25.2	11/19	89	0	1	53.2	3	0	0.10
13	vsWisconsin	L14-28	9.4	16/28	167	1	1	54.9	12	0	0.00

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

47.5%

Passing plays

98.1%

Rushing plays

12.1%

Standard downs

41.0%

Passing downs

62.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.11
Passing downs: 0.36
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.18 / 0.36

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2025 · 12 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.