Skip to content
Hunter Smith

#29Hunter Smith

Hunter Smith is a Explosive Back for UL Monroe. Hunter's 2023 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 101 plays — a developing 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 Hunter Smith'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
507 Rush yards3 Rush TD94 Carries5.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
8 Receptions71 Rec yards0 Rec TD8.9 Yards/rec
Returns
4 Kick returns47 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume39
  • Explosiveness48
  • Consistency50
  • Receiving30
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency50th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.33 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.00 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Army (SP+ -4).

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

+1.0001.00Wk 1 vs Army: +1.00 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Lamar: +0.39 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Texas A&M: +0.83 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs App State: -0.06 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs South Alabama: +0.25 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas State: -0.09 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Georgia Southern: +0.24 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Arkansas State: +0.32 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Southern Miss: -0.06 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Troy: +0.12 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ole Miss: +0.01 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Louisiana: -0.31 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsArmyW17-13-4.0710314.711.00
2vsLamarW24-14131017.811300.39
3@Texas A&ML3-4715.62168.000.83
5vsApp StateL40-413.810383.80-0.06
6vsSouth AlabamaL7-555.16193.2011900.25
7@Texas StateL20-21-1.67223.10190-0.09
8@Georgia SouthernL28-38-5.24235.810.24
9vsArkansas StateL24-34-6.313604.601900.32
10@Southern MissL7-24-14.48354.40130-0.06
11vsTroyL14-459.8362.0032800.12
12@Ole MissL3-3518.417744.400.01
13@LouisianaL21-520.44102.50-0.31

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
13.5%
Passing plays
2.2%
Rushing plays
24.6%
Standard downs
15.3%
Passing downs
10.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.14
Passing downs
0.31
Pass / Rush EPA
0.86 / 0.13

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.