Skip to content
Malik Nabers

#8Malik Nabers

WR·LSU·2023

Malik Nabers is a Versatile WR for LSU. Malik's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 114 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 Malik Nabers'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
89 Receptions1569 Rec yards14 Rec TD17.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume42
  • Explosiveness71
  • Consistency86
  • 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 consistency86th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.97 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Mississippi State (SP+ 1).

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

+1.9701.97Wk 1 vs Florida State: +0.30 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Grambling: +1.11 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Mississippi State: +1.97 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Arkansas: +1.15 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Ole Miss: +1.05 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Missouri: +1.00 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Auburn: +0.56 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Army: +0.77 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Alabama: +0.29 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida: +1.29 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Georgia State: +1.44 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Texas A&M: +1.34 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsFlorida StateL24-4519.466711.20210.30
2vsGramblingW72-1058717.41301.11
3@Mississippi StateW41-140.51323918.42481.97
4vsArkansasW34-313.5813016.32361.15
5@Ole MissL49-5518.4810212.80391.05
6@MissouriW49-3919.3614624.31391.00
7vsAuburnW48-187.668914.81290.56
8vsArmyW62-0-4.0412130.32510.77
10@AlabamaL28-4223.11017117.11460.29
11vsFloridaW52-356.8613222.00441.29
12vsGeorgia StateW56-14-6.8814017.52401.44
13vsTexas A&MW42-3015.6612220.32451.34
20vsWisconsinW35-319.43237.7011

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
14.6%
Passing plays
28.3%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
13.6%
Passing downs
17.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.77
Passing downs
1.13
Pass / Rush EPA
0.89 / -0.20

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.