Skip to content
Blake Shapen

#2Blake Shapen

Blake Shapen is a Dual-Threat QB for Baylor. Blake's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 309 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 Blake Shapen'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.

2023 Production

Passing
184/298 Comp/Att2188 Pass yards13 Pass TD3 INT61.7% Comp %
Rushing
29 Rush yards4 Rush TD67 Carries0.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency85
  • Clutch42
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 consistency85th %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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.72 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Texas State (SP+ -2).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

+0.7200.72Wk 1 vs Texas State: +0.72 EPA/play1Wk 5 vs UCF: +0.34 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Texas Tech: +0.46 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Cincinnati: +0.28 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Iowa State: +0.15 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Houston: +0.36 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kansas State: +0.14 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs TCU: +0.27 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsTexas StateL31-42-1.621/313032070.4-210.72
5@UCFW36-353.421/342931067.1-2410.34
6vsTexas TechL14-396.122/383241016.4-2000.46
8@CincinnatiW32-29-6.825/423161046.31210.28
9vsIowa StateL18-307.524/412391146.3-200.15
10vsHoustonL24-25-7.829/372632148.52900.36
11@Kansas StateL25-5916.222/452534141.0-600.14
12@TCUL17-427.920/301971068.24210.27

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
59.5%
Passing plays
91.1%
Rushing plays
17.7%
Standard downs
57.0%
Passing downs
64.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
0.34
Pass / Rush EPA
0.31 / 0.51

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.