#16Max Brosmer

QB·Minnesota·2024

Max Brosmer is a Dual-Threat QB for Minnesota. Max's 2024 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 456 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 Max Brosmer'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.

2024 Production

Passing

268/403 Comp/Att2829 Pass yards18 Pass TD6 INT66.5% Comp %

Rushing

-37 Rush yards5 Rush TD71 Carries-0.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat68
Consistency80
Clutch85

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 consistency80th %ile · above avg

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.
▸5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.08 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.81 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Maryland (SP+ -4).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

On3 valuation ↗

Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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

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	vsNorth Carolina	L17-19	5.0	13/21	166	0	0	47.7	-6	1	0.22
2	vsRhode Island	W48-0	—	24/30	271	2	0	54.4	-2	0	0.46
3	vsNevada	W27-0	-15.2	16/26	191	1	1	39.2	2	0	0.03
4	vsIowa	L14-31	15.8	22/37	209	2	2	49.7	2	0	0.13
5	@Michigan	L24-27	10.6	27/40	258	1	1	64.3	-20	0	0.41
6	vsUSC	W24-17	11.9	15/19	169	0	0	89.3	14	3	0.45
7	@UCLA	W21-17	-1.3	26/37	193	2	0	65.4	-7	0	0.17
9	vsMaryland	W48-23	-3.9	26/33	320	4	0	97.6	—	—	0.81
10	@Illinois	W25-17	9.6	22/37	213	1	0	55.5	-11	0	0.23
11	@Rutgers	L19-26	6.4	27/45	262	1	0	44.2	-2	0	0.17
13	vsPenn State	L25-26	24.6	15/23	175	1	1	60.7	3	0	0.20
14	@Wisconsin	W24-7	3.0	17/26	191	2	0	79.4	-8	1	0.41
20	vsVirginia Tech	W24-10	10.0	18/29	211	1	1	75.9	-2	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

57.3%

Passing plays

96.5%

Rushing plays

13.2%

Standard downs

53.5%

Passing downs

66.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.21
Passing downs: 0.44
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.29 / 0.24

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