Skip to content
Tanner Mordecai

#8Tanner Mordecai

QB·SMU·2022202114.0 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Tanner Mordecai is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for SMU. Tanner's 2021 season ranks in the 85th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 482 plays — a above-average 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 Tanner Mordecai'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.

2021 Production

Passing
308/454 Comp/Att3628 Pass yards39 Pass TD12 INT67.8% Comp %
Rushing
202 Rush yards2 Rush TD74 Carries2.7 Yards/carry
Punting
1 Punts15 Punt yards15.0 Yards/punt15 Long0 Inside 20

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency85
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency78
  • 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)85th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency78th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (85th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 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 — 0.44 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.62 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Abilene Christian.

NIL Market Tier· 2021

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 · QB · 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
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4
Will HowardOhio State0.67014.5378.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.6201.62Wk 1 vs Abilene Christian: +1.62 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs North Texas: +0.62 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.53 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs TCU: +1.00 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs South Florida: +0.56 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Navy: +0.34 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Tulane: +0.71 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Houston: +0.32 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Memphis: +0.42 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UCF: +0.39 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cincinnati: -0.08 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Tulsa: +0.29 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsAbilene ChristianW56-924/303177092.3001.62
2vsNorth TexasW35-12-6.521/333114243.53300.62
3@Louisiana TechW39-37-11.636/483955076.75100.53
4@TCUW42-34-0.617/282454369.53711.00
5vsSouth FloridaW41-17-12.129/423014166.42800.56
6@NavyW31-24-8.530/403242165.9200.34
8vsTulaneW55-26-3.930/424273091.43410.71
9@HoustonL37-4410.924/373053185.5-900.32
10@MemphisL25-281.019/282622131.5-1800.42
11vsUCFW55-284.837/543773181.53300.39
12@CincinnatiL14-4821.215/26661049.1-90-0.08
13vsTulsaL31-345.826/462981249.62000.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
57.8%
Passing plays
95.4%
Rushing plays
13.5%
Standard downs
50.1%
Passing downs
76.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
0.85
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / 0.64

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.800−0.342022
EPA per play · 2021 — 2022 · 24 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021SMU
14.0
321.5
2022SMU
9.0
248.9

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.