#12Malik Rosier

QB·Miami·20175.4 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Malik Rosier is a Dual-Threat QB for Miami. Malik's 2017 season ranks in the 13th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 525 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 Malik Rosier'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.

2017 Production

Passing

223/414 Comp/Att3111 Pass yards26 Pass TD14 INT53.9% Comp %

Rushing

468 Rush yards5 Rush TD131 Carries3.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2017 · vs QB peers

Efficiency13
Volume100
Dual-Threat88
Consistency72
Clutch100

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)13th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency72th %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.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.26 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.54 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Toledo (SP+ 7).

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	vsBethune-Cookman	W41-13	—	17/28	217	3	0	80.7	41	0	0.52
4	vsToledo	W52-30	6.6	27/36	333	3	1	83.7	11	1	0.54
5	@Duke	W31-6	6.1	15/26	270	2	1	74.3	45	1	0.39
6	@Florida State	W24-20	22.8	19/44	254	3	1	47.4	29	0	0.15
7	vsGeorgia Tech	W25-24	8.9	23/37	297	1	0	48.5	20	0	0.31
8	vsSyracuse	W27-19	4.0	26/43	344	2	0	62.5	45	0	0.32
9	@North Carolina	W24-19	4.3	16/38	356	3	1	50.2	20	0	0.23
10	vsVirginia Tech	W28-10	14.3	10/21	193	2	3	77.2	84	1	0.28
11	vsNotre Dame	W41-8	20.8	15/24	137	1	0	—	44	1	0.18
12	vsVirginia	W44-28	0.8	15/28	210	3	2	81.4	38	1	0.34
13	@Pittsburgh	L14-24	6.0	15/34	187	2	0	29.7	31	0	0.07
14	vsClemson	L3-38	26.4	14/29	110	0	2	9.1	19	0	-0.37
1	vsWisconsin	L24-34	26.8	11/26	203	1	3	20.8	41	0	0.14

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

63.8%

Passing plays

97.6%

Rushing plays

27.6%

Standard downs

57.8%

Passing downs

75.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.14
Passing downs: 0.45
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.25 / 0.34

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 · 2017 · 13 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.