Skip to content
Elijah Young

#3Elijah Young

Elijah Young is a Pass-Catching Back for Western Kentucky. Elijah's 2024 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 234 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

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

2024 Production

Rushing
883 Rush yards3 Rush TD201 Carries4.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
47 Receptions384 Rec yards2 Rec TD8.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume79
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency52
  • Receiving72
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency52th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.51 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Kennesaw State (SP+ -25).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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.

Historical Comparables · RB · 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
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
Breece HallIowa State0.3404.5102.3
Donnel PumphreySan Diego State0.3204.2110.1
Eno BenjaminArizona State0.3304.6104.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.5100.51Wk 1 vs Alabama: -0.20 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Eastern Kentucky: +0.31 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.29 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Toledo: +0.34 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Boston College: -0.12 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs UTEP: -0.00 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Sam Houston: +0.13 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Kennesaw State: +0.51 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs New Mexico State: -0.14 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.11 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Liberty: +0.39 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Jacksonville State: +0.33 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Jacksonville State: +0.11 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@AlabamaL0-6325.010181.804160-0.20
2vsEastern KentuckyW31-013524.0232400.31
3@Middle TennesseeW49-21-24.410272.7056400.29
4vsToledoW26-21-2.59364.0033200.34
5@Boston CollegeL20-211.221854.005220-0.12
7vsUTEPW44-17-22.716603.80180-0.00
8@Sam HoustonW31-14-6.923974.2036110.13
10vsKennesaw StateW31-14-25.1151147.6022000.51
11@New Mexico StateW41-28-19.016744.60-0.14
12vsLouisiana TechL7-12-11.610242.414210-0.11
13@LibertyL21-380.29606.7032600.39
14vsJacksonville StateW19-17-1.019914.8077810.33
15@Jacksonville StateL12-52-1.0191085.703-900.11
20vsJames MadisonL17-277.511373.404210

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
27.7%
Passing plays
10.9%
Rushing plays
47.2%
Standard downs
31.0%
Passing downs
20.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.04
Passing downs
0.37
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / -0.01

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.