Skip to content
Elijah Metcalf

#9Elijah Metcalf

Elijah Metcalf is a Versatile WR for Middle Tennessee. Elijah's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 58 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · 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)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

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

Receiving
54 Receptions634 Rec yards6 Rec TD11.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume21
  • Explosiveness32
  • Consistency69
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 3.19 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Jacksonville State (SP+ -2).

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 · WR · 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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.1903.19Wk 1 vs Alabama: -0.04 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Missouri: +1.35 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Murray State: +0.01 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Colorado State: +0.53 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Western Kentucky: -0.03 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Jacksonville State: +3.19 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Louisiana Tech: +1.28 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Liberty: +1.50 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs New Mexico State: +1.11 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida International: +0.51 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UTEP: +0.19 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Sam Houston: +0.69 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@AlabamaL7-5623.13124.009-0.04
2@MissouriL19-2319.357014.00371.35
3vsMurray StateW35-143155.0080.01
4vsColorado StateL23-31-8.911958.61270.53
5@Western KentuckyL10-31-2.05438.6040-0.03
6vsJacksonville StateL30-45-1.6411528.82713.19
7vsLouisiana TechW31-23-12.945914.81271.28
8@LibertyL35-428.057414.81331.50
10@New Mexico StateL7-13-1.856913.80261.11
11vsFlorida InternationalW40-6-21.24317.81240.51
12vsUTEPW34-30-16.23237.70120.19
13@Sam HoustonL20-23-13.822814.00230.69

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.2%
Passing plays
13.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.3%
Passing downs
9.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.57
Passing downs
1.14
Pass / Rush EPA
0.82 / —

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.