Skip to content
Kaidon Salter

#3Kaidon Salter

QB·Liberty·202314.7 pts line value1st Round

Kaidon Salter is a Dual-Threat QB for Liberty. Kaidon's 2023 season ranks in the 90th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 408 plays — a elite 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.

2023 Production

Passing
177/290 Comp/Att2876 Pass yards32 Pass TD6 INT61.0% Comp %
Rushing
1089 Rush yards12 Rush TD163 Carries6.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency90
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency89
  • Clutch74
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)90th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency89th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 11 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 0.14 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.17 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Buffalo (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

Historical Comparables · QB · 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
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4
Dillon GabrielOklahoma0.73216.1346.4
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Jayden DanielsLSU0.78317.5360.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.1701.17Wk 1 vs Bowling Green: +0.22 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs New Mexico State: +0.62 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Buffalo: +1.17 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida International: +0.50 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Sam Houston: +0.58 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Jacksonville State: +0.60 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.59 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Western Kentucky: +0.96 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.91 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Old Dominion: +0.69 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Massachusetts: +0.81 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs UTEP: +0.30 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs New Mexico State: +0.85 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsBowling GreenW34-24-7.811/201432046.28200.22
2vsNew Mexico StateW33-17-1.815/252762064.34320.62
3@BuffaloW55-27-15.216/263445090.36611.17
4@Florida InternationalW38-6-21.211/211562167.07720.50
6vsSam HoustonW21-16-13.811/192571170.13810.58
7@Jacksonville StateW31-13-1.612/211772084.63100.60
8vsMiddle TennesseeW42-35-9.512/201402176.916000.59
9@Western KentuckyW42-29-2.010/151693097.111710.96
10vsLouisiana TechW56-30-12.916/252974095.55000.91
11vsOld DominionW38-10-10.113/222253184.44120.69
12vsMassachusettsW49-25-17.511/162252195.111820.81
13@UTEPW42-28-16.24/11221072.57600.30
14vsNew Mexico StateW49-35-1.820/253192097.616510.85
20vsOregonL6-4526.215/241261130.5250

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
45.7%
Passing plays
93.1%
Rushing plays
23.8%
Standard downs
39.9%
Passing downs
64.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.59
Passing downs
0.76
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / 0.58

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.