Skip to content
Malik Washington
Malik Washington

#7Malik Washington

Malik Washington is a Dual-Threat QB for Maryland. Malik's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 495 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 Washington'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.

2025 Production

Passing
273/473 Comp/Att2963 Pass yards17 Pass TD9 INT57.7% Comp %
Rushing
317 Rush yards4 Rush TD55 Carries5.8 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

30
Attempts
5.9y
Avg depth
6.8y
After catch
60%
Catch rate

The ball travels 5.9 yards in the air on an average throw 1.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 6.8 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
0
2
0% · 0y
1
0% · 0y
short
8
63% · 53y
7
71% · 49y
12
67% · 77y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency71
  • 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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency71th %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 — 0.19 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.85 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Towson.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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

+0.8500.85Wk 1 vs Florida Atlantic: +0.30 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Northern Illinois: +0.07 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Towson: +0.85 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wisconsin: +0.28 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Washington: +0.20 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Nebraska: +0.25 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UCLA: +0.11 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Indiana: -0.01 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Rutgers: +0.19 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Illinois: -0.04 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan: +0.18 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Michigan State: +0.36 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsFlorida AtlanticW39-7-8.727/432583048.50.30
2vsNorthern IllinoisW20-9-16.719/352542029.4-100.07
3vsTowsonW44-1716/222611194.82910.85
4@WisconsinW27-10-4.418/342652062.4-1210.28
6vsWashingtonL20-2418.430/492191159.0610.20
7vsNebraskaL31-346.227/372491074.72300.25
8@UCLAL17-20-8.723/482101149.66700.11
10vsIndianaL10-5532.416/312421238.810-0.01
11@RutgersL20-351.015/28981164.416410.19
12@IllinoisL6-2412.925/462380142.560-0.04
13vsMichiganL20-4512.419/392101171.31600.18
14vsMichigan StateL28-38-3.438/614593167.81800.36

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
65.7%
Passing plays
96.1%
Rushing plays
16.2%
Standard downs
56.0%
Passing downs
84.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.02
Passing downs
0.55
Pass / Rush EPA
0.23 / 0.49

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.
Malik Washington Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Maryland · Gridpex