Skip to content
Caleb Williams

#13Caleb Williams

QB·USC·2023202213.3 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Caleb Williams is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for USC. Caleb's 2023 season ranks in the 75th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 464 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 Caleb Williams'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
266/388 Comp/Att3633 Pass yards30 Pass TD5 INT68.6% Comp %
Rushing
115 Rush yards11 Rush TD99 Carries1.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency75
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency83
  • Clutch89
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)75th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency83th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (75th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 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 — 0.42 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.17 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Stanford (SP+ -12).

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.

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
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.1701.17Wk 1 vs Nevada: +0.99 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Stanford: +1.17 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Arizona State: +0.39 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Colorado: +0.64 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Arizona: +0.52 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Notre Dame: +0.24 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Utah: +0.25 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs California: +0.42 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Washington: +0.33 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Oregon: +0.33 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UCLA: +0.35 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
0vsSan José StateW56-28-3.418/252784084.9-20
1vsNevadaW66-14-22.018/243195092.14200.99
2vsStanfordW56-10-11.919/212813097.52111.17
4@Arizona StateW42-28-11.320/313223069.71020.39
5@ColoradoW48-41-4.930/404036193.11200.64
6vsArizonaW43-4114.114/252191078.34130.52
7@Notre DameL20-4820.123/371991355.7-800.24
8vsUtahL32-348.524/342560089.32710.25
9@CaliforniaW50-49-0.123/403692062.1-1320.42
10vsWashingtonL42-5216.427/353123089.11610.33
11@OregonL27-3626.219/342911068.1-1110.33
12vsUCLAL20-389.731/423841179.4-2000.35

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
62.4%
Passing plays
91.5%
Rushing plays
22.2%
Standard downs
56.8%
Passing downs
75.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
0.61
Pass / Rush EPA
0.45 / 0.51

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.280−0.072023
EPA per play · 2022 — 2023 · 26 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2022USC
17.0
415.9
2023USC
13.3
318.7

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.