Skip to content
Blake Corum

#2Blake Corum

RB·Michigan·2023202220212.3 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Blake Corum is a 3-year Pass-Catching Back for Michigan. Blake's 2021 season ranks in the 45th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 159 plays — a average rate for the RB.

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 Blake Corum'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

Rushing
952 Rush yards11 Rush TD144 Carries6.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
24 Receptions141 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.9 Yards/rec
Returns
12 Kick returns304 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency45
  • Volume61
  • Explosiveness72
  • Consistency46
  • Receiving74
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)45th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency46th %ile · average
Career trajectory:→ Stable
Key findings
  • 6 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 — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.72 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Northern Illinois (SP+ -7).

NIL Market Tier· 2021

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

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
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Clyde Edwards-HelaireLSU0.4905.0105.8
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Nick WilsonArizona0.4105.2102.5

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.7200.72Wk 1 vs Western Michigan: +0.54 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Washington: +0.61 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Northern Illinois: +0.72 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Rutgers: +0.09 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Wisconsin: -0.21 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Nebraska: +0.45 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Northwestern: +0.54 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Michigan State: -0.16 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Indiana: -0.11 EPA/play10Wk 13 vs Ohio State: +0.63 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Iowa: +0.33 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs Georgia: -0.65 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsWestern MichiganW47-140.6141117.9122210.54
2vsWashingtonW31-10-0.7211718.1331100.61
3vsNorthern IllinoisW63-10-7.1131259.6311300.72
4vsRutgersW20-13-3.021683.2021100.09
5@WisconsinW38-1720.115463.10180-0.21
6@NebraskaW32-2910.313896.8153700.45
8vsNorthwesternW33-7-11.1191196.3242300.54
9@Michigan StateL33-3711.213453.502120-0.16
10vsIndianaW29-7-7.8144.00-0.11
13vsOhio StateW42-2729.368714.500.63
14vsIowaW42-311.457414.812600.33
1vsGeorgiaL11-3432.03134.302-20-0.65

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
21.2%
Passing plays
8.6%
Rushing plays
29.9%
Standard downs
22.5%
Passing downs
17.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.17
Passing downs
0.60
Pass / Rush EPA
0.56 / 0.21

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.980−0.8020222023
EPA per play · 2021 — 2023 · 39 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021Michigan
2.3
54.2
2022Michigan
6.5
119.7
2023Michigan
5.1
107.5

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.