#18Jiya Wright

QB·UL Monroe·2023

Jiya Wright is a Volume Passer for UL Monroe. Jiya's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 256 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 Jiya Wright'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

107/204 Comp/Att1246 Pass yards10 Pass TD8 INT52.5% Comp %

Rushing

264 Rush yards2 Rush TD99 Carries2.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat30
Consistency0
Clutch42

Player type

Volume Passer

High-rep offense that leans on this QB's arm — value comes through cumulative production across a high number of plays.

High play countFranchise-volume role

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %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.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.14 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.56 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs App State (SP+ 4).

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	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsArmy	W17-13	-4.0	11/22	69	0	2	9.7	35	0	-0.12
3	@Texas A&M	L3-47	15.6	6/15	95	0	0	49.2	34	0	0.11
5	vsApp State	L40-41	3.8	18/27	268	4	1	68.0	74	1	0.56
6	vsSouth Alabama	L7-55	5.1	13/28	112	1	2	5.2	53	0	-0.00
7	@Texas State	L20-21	-1.6	14/22	150	1	0	37.1	52	0	0.09
8	@Georgia Southern	L28-38	-5.2	7/13	81	1	1	24.4	-2	0	0.24
10	@Southern Miss	L7-24	-14.4	5/12	106	1	0	3.1	3	0	-0.02
11	vsTroy	L14-45	9.8	20/36	243	2	0	25.5	-20	0	-0.05
12	@Ole Miss	L3-35	18.4	7/19	56	0	1	5.3	19	0	-0.36
13	@Louisiana	L21-52	0.4	6/10	66	0	1	49.6	16	1	0.14

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

47.3%

Passing plays

71.5%

Rushing plays

25.2%

Standard downs

43.3%

Passing downs

54.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.07
Passing downs: 0.09
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.09 / 0.05

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