Skip to content
Blake Corum

#2Blake Corum

RB·Michigan·2023202220215.1 pts line value1st Round

Blake Corum is a 3-year Featured Back for Michigan. Blake's 2023 season ranks in the 88th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 261 plays — a above-average rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Blake Corum'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

Rushing
1245 Rush yards27 Rush TD258 Carries4.8 Yards/carry
Receiving
16 Receptions117 Rec yards1 Rec TD7.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency88
  • Volume85
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency75
  • Receiving28
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)88th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:→ Stable
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the RB position (88th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.76 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Bowling Green (SP+ -8).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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.

Historical Comparables · RB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Ameer AbdullahNebraska0.3805.399.6
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
Royce FreemanOregon0.3605.199.0
LeVante BellamyWestern Michigan0.4005.4107.6
Nick WilsonArizona0.4105.2102.5

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.7600.76Wk 1 vs East Carolina: +0.30 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UNLV: +0.29 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Bowling Green: +0.76 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Rutgers: +0.25 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Nebraska: +0.36 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Minnesota: +0.34 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Indiana: +0.23 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Michigan State: +0.12 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Purdue: +0.06 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Penn State: +0.18 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Maryland: +0.16 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Ohio State: +0.19 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Iowa: -0.13 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsEast CarolinaW30-3-12.810737.313500.30
2vsUNLVW35-71.415805.3322300.29
3vsBowling GreenW31-6-7.8121018.420.76
4vsRutgersW31-73.521974.620.25
5@NebraskaW45-70.316744.610.36
6@MinnesotaW52-100.49697.710.34
7vsIndianaW52-7-7.413524.0211500.23
8@Michigan StateW49-0-6.815593.9121700.12
10vsPurdueW41-13-7.315442.932300.06
11@Penn StateW24-1523.5261455.620.18
12@MarylandW31-2411.028943.421900.16
13vsOhio StateW30-2425.222884.020.19
14vsIowaW26-05.816523.323100-0.13
20vsWashingtonW34-1316.4211346.42
20vsAlabamaW27-2023.119834.412351

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
29.6%
Passing plays
4.5%
Rushing plays
47.3%
Standard downs
34.4%
Passing downs
16.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.26
Passing downs
0.15
Pass / Rush EPA
0.47 / 0.23

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.980−0.8020222023
EPA per play · 2021 — 2023 · 39 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021Michigan
2.3
54.2
2022Michigan
6.5
119.7
2023Michigan
5.1
107.5

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.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.