Skip to content
Larry Rose III

#3Larry Rose III

RB·New Mexico State·20155.2 pts line value1st Round

Larry Rose III is a Featured Back for New Mexico State. Larry's 2015 season ranks in the 78th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 261 plays — a above-average 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 Larry Rose III'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.

2015 Production

Rushing
1651 Rush yards14 Rush TD240 Carries6.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
30 Receptions283 Rec yards2 Rec TD9.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2015 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency78
  • Volume89
  • Explosiveness78
  • Consistency62
  • Receiving53
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)78th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency62th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the RB position (78th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.07 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs New Mexico (SP+ -9).

Historical Comparables · RB · 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
Ameer AbdullahNebraska0.3805.399.6
LeVante BellamyWestern Michigan0.4005.4107.6
Nick WilsonArizona0.4105.2102.5
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0701.07Wk 1 vs Florida: +0.30 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Georgia State: -0.04 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UTEP: +0.52 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs New Mexico: +1.07 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Ole Miss: -0.02 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Georgia Southern: +0.13 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Troy: +0.39 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Idaho: +0.82 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Texas State: +0.45 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Louisiana: +0.05 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Arkansas State: -0.00 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UL Monroe: -0.22 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@FloridaL13-6113.812645.3124200.30
2vsGeorgia StateL32-34-6.718693.814270-0.04
3vsUTEPL47-50-19.5201869.312500.52
5@New MexicoL29-38-8.72126012.431.07
6@Ole MissL3-5227.09262.90280-0.02
7@Georgia SouthernL26-567.314866.1053100.13
8vsTroyL7-52-7.0211808.6056710.39
9vsIdahoW55-48-12.2252128.5421100.82
10@Texas StateW31-21-15.5312076.7228510.45
12@LouisianaW37-34-7.1271917.102100.05
13vsArkansas StateL28-520.5151067.10250-0.00
14@UL MonroeL35-42-14.727642.42210-0.22

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
31.2%
Passing plays
9.1%
Rushing plays
58.2%
Standard downs
35.6%
Passing downs
23.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.53
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.01 / 0.37

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.200−0.35
EPA per play · 2015 · 12 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.

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