Skip to content
Mohamed Ibrahim

#24Mohamed Ibrahim

RB·Minnesota·2022202020185.3 pts line value1st Round

Mohamed Ibrahim is a 3-year Featured Back for Minnesota. Mohamed's 2022 season ranks in the 57th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 311 plays — a average rate for the RB. Mohamed's production has improved each season, a positive development trajectory.

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 Mohamed Ibrahim'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.

2022 Production

Rushing
1665 Rush yards20 Rush TD320 Carries5.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
7 Receptions50 Rec yards0 Rec TD7.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2022 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency57
  • Volume100
  • Explosiveness44
  • Consistency72
  • Receiving12
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)57th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency72th %ile · average
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.84 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Colorado (SP+ -20).

NIL Market Tier· 2022

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.

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
D'Onta ForemanTexas0.3405.3112.9
Jonathan TaylorWisconsin0.3504.8107.4
Jonathan TaylorWisconsin0.3605.0106.9
Jaret PattersonBuffalo0.3705.6118.0
Eno BenjaminArizona State0.3304.6104.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8400.84Wk 1 vs New Mexico State: +0.54 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Illinois: +0.37 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Colorado: +0.84 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Michigan State: -0.01 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Illinois: +0.50 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Penn State: +0.10 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Rutgers: +0.34 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Nebraska: +0.15 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Northwestern: +0.28 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Iowa: +0.19 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Wisconsin: -0.21 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Syracuse: +0.28 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsNew Mexico StateW38-0-15.4211326.321800.54
2vsWestern IllinoisW62-10231305.721500.37
3vsColoradoW49-7-20.4232028.830.84
4@Michigan StateW34-71.2221034.712200-0.01
7@IllinoisL14-2615.9151278.511200.50
8@Penn StateL17-4522.4301023.410.10
9vsRutgersW31-0-9.1361594.431800.34
10@NebraskaW20-13-1.2321284.020.15
11vsNorthwesternW31-3-13.4361784.930.28
12vsIowaL10-1312.7392636.711700.19
13@WisconsinW23-168.327702.60-0.21
1vsSyracuseW28-202.516714.410.28

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
40.9%
Passing plays
2.8%
Rushing plays
59.3%
Standard downs
46.5%
Passing downs
25.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.41
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / 0.25

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.950−0.3220202022
EPA per play · 2018 — 2022 · 29 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2018Minnesota
2.4
60.9
2020Minnesota
6.7
80.9
2022Minnesota
5.3
103.6

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.