Skip to content
Elijah Faulkner

#23Elijah Faulkner

Elijah Faulkner is a Committee Back for Massachusetts.

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 Elijah Faulkner'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.

2025 Production

Rushing
114 Rush yards0 Rush TD40 Carries2.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
1 Receptions5 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume20
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency71
  • Receiving16
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency71th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.10 from the first to second half of the season.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+1.1301.13Wk 1 vs Temple: -0.30 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Iowa: -0.61 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Missouri: -0.38 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Western Michigan: -0.27 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kent State: -0.35 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Buffalo: -1.13 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Akron: +0.02 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Northern Illinois: -0.27 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Ohio: +0.04 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Bowling Green: -0.08 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsTempleL10-42-5.1133.00-0.30
3@IowaL7-4719.7471.80-0.61
5@MissouriL6-4214.4221.00150-0.38
6vsWestern MichiganL3-21-1.47142.00-0.27
7@Kent StateL6-42-19.3210.50-0.35
8vsBuffaloL21-28-7.51-1-1.00-1.13
11@AkronL10-44-13.93103.300.02
12vsNorthern IllinoisL3-45-16.75122.40-0.27
13@OhioL14-42-4.07304.300.04
14vsBowling GreenL14-45-12.68364.50-0.08

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.9%
Passing plays
0.6%
Rushing plays
15.5%
Standard downs
9.1%
Passing downs
3.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.21
Passing downs
-0.45
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.17 / -0.27

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

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