#10Eli Holstein

QB·Pittsburgh·2025

Eli Holstein is a Dual-Threat QB for Pittsburgh. Eli's 2025 season ranks in the 35th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 137 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 Eli Holstein'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.

2025 Production

Passing

77/125 Comp/Att1081 Pass yards12 Pass TD6 INT61.6% Comp %

Rushing

88 Rush yards1 Rush TD36 Carries2.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency35
Volume93
Dual-Threat78
Consistency0
Clutch90

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)35th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below 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 variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 1.32 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.70 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Central Michigan (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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

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	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsDuquesne	W61-9	—	15/23	215	4	1	74.4	41	0	0.66
2	vsCentral Michigan	W45-17	-8.8	21/28	304	4	1	89.9	36	0	0.70
3	@West Virginia	L24-31	-6.8	22/37	303	1	1	28.5	-27	1	0.17
5	vsLouisville	L27-34	12.4	14/26	228	2	2	35.5	19	0	0.07
6	vsBoston College	W48-7	-8.5	2/4	8	0	0	27.0	14	0	-0.01
9	vsNC State	W53-34	4.8	0/1	0	0	1	0.0	4	0	-2.38
12	vsNotre Dame	L15-37	24.4	3/6	23	1	0	78.4	1	0	-0.05

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

32.4%

Passing plays

44.9%

Rushing plays

14.0%

Standard downs

30.2%

Passing downs

36.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.27
Passing downs: 0.52
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.42 / 0.29

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