#1Braylon Braxton

QB·Tulsa·2023

Braylon Braxton is a Dual-Threat QB for Tulsa. Braylon's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 71 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 Braylon Braxton'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

22/50 Comp/Att212 Pass yards2 Pass TD6 INT44.0% Comp %

Rushing

174 Rush yards0 Rush TD40 Carries4.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume58
Dual-Threat53
Consistency20
Clutch40

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 consistency20th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.41 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Florida Atlantic (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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.

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	EPA/play
1	vsArkansas-Pine Bluff	W42-7	—	1/4	9	0	2	0.0	9	0.05
6	@Florida Atlantic	L17-20	-9.4	3/8	67	1	0	60.0	47	0.41
8	vsRice	L10-42	-10.2	4/8	37	0	1	23.0	89	0.13
9	@SMU	L10-69	10.1	10/20	92	0	2	18.6	11	-0.16
10	vsCharlotte	L26-33	-21.4	1/4	4	0	0	2.2	9	-0.04
11	@Tulane	L22-24	2.8	3/6	3	1	1	24.1	9	-0.00

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

20.2%

Passing plays

30.1%

Rushing plays

14.1%

Standard downs

15.6%

Passing downs

29.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.11
Passing downs: 0.11
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.06 / 0.16

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