#10Heinrich Haarberg

QB·Nebraska·20230.6 pts line value1st Round

Heinrich Haarberg is a Dual-Threat QB for Nebraska. Heinrich's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 243 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 Heinrich Haarberg'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

77/157 Comp/Att967 Pass yards7 Pass TD7 INT49.0% Comp %

Rushing

477 Rush yards5 Rush TD120 Carries4.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat72
Consistency45
Clutch71

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 consistency45th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.58 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.07 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Minnesota (SP+ 0).

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.

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	@Minnesota	L10-13	0.4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2.07
2	@Colorado	L14-36	-4.9	2/6	13	1	0	61.9	17	0	0.29
3	vsNorthern Illinois	W35-11	-7.5	14/24	158	2	0	51.6	98	1	0.39
4	vsLouisiana Tech	W28-14	-12.9	8/17	107	1	0	26.9	157	1	0.27
5	vsMichigan	L7-45	31.3	14/25	199	0	1	35.3	-2	0	0.10
6	@Illinois	W20-7	-2.5	12/24	154	0	1	66.0	82	1	0.21
8	vsNorthwestern	W17-9	-1.3	8/17	85	1	2	19.3	72	1	0.19
9	vsPurdue	W31-14	-7.3	6/11	122	2	0	67.7	22	0	0.31
10	@Michigan State	L17-20	-6.8	12/28	129	0	2	39.3	31	1	-0.04
11	vsMaryland	L10-13	11.0	1/5	0	0	1	0.6	0	0	-0.43

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

43.8%

Passing plays

77.7%

Rushing plays

26.1%

Standard downs

35.9%

Passing downs

59.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.17
Passing downs: 0.32
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.22 / 0.26

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 · 2023 · 10 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.