Skip to content
Eli Stowers

#9Eli Stowers

Eli Stowers is a Versatile TE for New Mexico State. Eli's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 70 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Eli Stowers'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

Rushing
105 Rush yards2 Rush TD29 Carries3.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
35 Receptions366 Rec yards2 Rec TD10.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness23
  • Consistency75
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile TE

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.25 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.46 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs UTEP (SP+ -16).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4601.46Wk 1 vs Western Illinois: +0.55 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Liberty: -0.10 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico: +0.41 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Hawai'i: +0.44 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Florida International: +0.50 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Sam Houston: +0.61 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UTEP: +1.46 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.31 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Middle Tennessee: +1.24 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Western Kentucky: +0.61 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Auburn: +0.38 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Jacksonville State: -0.11 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0vsMassachusettsL30-41-17.5
1vsWestern IllinoisW58-210.55
2@LibertyL17-338.0-0.10
3@New MexicoW27-17-16.50.41
4@Hawai'iL17-20-16.40.44
6vsFlorida InternationalW34-17-21.23248.00120.50
7vsSam HoustonW27-13-13.86579.50180.61
8@UTEPW28-7-16.258016.00321.46
9@Louisiana TechW27-24-12.94276.80100.31
10vsMiddle TennesseeW13-7-9.568313.80301.24
11@Western KentuckyW38-29-2.0177.0170.61
12@AuburnW31-107.644812.01210.38
13vsJacksonville StateW20-17-1.63206.7012-0.11
20vsFresno StateL10-372.53206.7010

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.7%
Passing plays
12.1%
Rushing plays
6.1%
Standard downs
8.6%
Passing downs
9.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.41
Passing downs
0.79
Pass / Rush EPA
0.73 / 0.19

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.