#10Cole Snyder

QB·Buffalo·2023

Cole Snyder is a Volume Passer for Buffalo. Cole's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 325 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 Cole Snyder'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

203/372 Comp/Att2109 Pass yards13 Pass TD9 INT54.6% Comp %

Rushing

88 Rush yards1 Rush TD67 Carries1.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat31
Consistency70
Clutch44

Player type

Volume Passer

High-rep offense that leans on this QB's arm — value comes through cumulative production across a high number of plays.

High play countFranchise-volume role

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency70th %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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.25 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.66 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Central Michigan (SP+ -19).

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	@Wisconsin	L17-38	9.4	26/41	194	2	0	54.7	9	0	-0.02
2	vsFordham	L37-40	—	24/30	265	3	0	51.2	-12	0	0.56
3	vsLiberty	L27-55	8.0	29/51	276	4	2	36.5	20	0	0.51
4	@Louisiana	L38-45	0.4	17/34	198	1	2	19.7	-6	0	0.21
5	@Akron	W13-10	-21.6	19/34	142	1	0	26.1	10	0	—
6	vsCentral Michigan	W37-13	-19.1	20/32	232	0	0	41.7	20	0	0.66
7	vsBowling Green	L14-24	-7.8	5/15	30	0	2	8.1	-4	1	0.03
8	@Kent State	W24-6	-26.3	18/33	195	1	1	20.7	2	0	0.36
10	@Toledo	L13-31	3.7	14/41	151	1	2	17.3	37	0	-0.04
11	vsOhio	L10-20	-1.6	14/21	171	0	0	55.2	1	0	0.39
12	@Miami (OH)	L10-23	2.8	6/14	120	0	0	48.6	13	0	-0.01
13	vsEastern Michigan	L11-24	-12.3	11/26	135	0	0	7.0	-2	0	0.04

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

44.7%

Passing plays

82.3%

Rushing plays

10.3%

Standard downs

38.5%

Passing downs

59.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.23
Passing downs: 0.25
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.26 / 0.06

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