Skip to content
Kaidon Salter

#3Kaidon Salter

Kaidon Salter is a Dual-Threat QB for Colorado. Kaidon's 2025 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 284 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 Kaidon Salter'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
127/204 Comp/Att1414 Pass yards10 Pass TD7 INT62.3% Comp %
Rushing
357 Rush yards5 Rush TD104 Carries3.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat99
  • Consistency70
  • Clutch76
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)8th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency70th %ile · average
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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.16 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.70 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Wyoming (SP+ -11).

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

+0.7000.70Wk 1 vs Georgia Tech: +0.26 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Delaware: +0.18 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Wyoming: +0.70 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs BYU: +0.15 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs TCU: +0.23 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa State: +0.57 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Utah: -0.20 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Arizona: +0.17 EPA/play10Wk 14 vs Kansas State: +0.12 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsGeorgia TechL20-279.317/281591057.64310.26
2vsDelawareW31-7-10.913/161020072.22510.18
4vsWyomingW37-20-11.318/283043093.88610.70
5vsBYUL21-2415.911/161191165.04910.15
6@TCUL21-358.318/292172363.41110.23
7vsIowa StateW24-179.916/252552088.15700.57
9@UtahL7-5322.29/22370110.7-40-0.20
10vsArizonaL17-5212.011/15491149.12700.17
14@Kansas StateL14-247.014/251720177.16300.12

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
51.6%
Passing plays
82.4%
Rushing plays
26.5%
Standard downs
44.0%
Passing downs
65.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.40
Pass / Rush EPA
0.27 / 0.40

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.290−0.18
EPA per play · 2023 · 14 games

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.