Skip to content
Kaleb Eleby

#5Kaleb Eleby

QB·Western Michigan·202120208.0 pts line value

Kaleb Eleby is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Western Michigan. Kaleb's 2021 season ranks in the 50th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 421 plays — a average 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 Kaleb Eleby'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.

2021 Production

Passing
230/362 Comp/Att3277 Pass yards23 Pass TD6 INT63.5% Comp %
Rushing
64 Rush yards6 Rush TD87 Carries0.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency50
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat90
  • Consistency81
  • Clutch68
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)50th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency81th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 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: 1.02 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Kent State (SP+ -6).

NIL Market Tier· 2021

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 · 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
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0201.02Wk 1 vs Michigan: +0.11 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Illinois State: +0.20 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Pittsburgh: +0.49 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs San José State: +0.13 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Buffalo: +0.37 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Ball State: +0.51 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kent State: +1.02 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Toledo: +0.24 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Central Michigan: +0.12 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Akron: +0.79 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.54 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Northern Illinois: +0.99 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Nevada: +0.61 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@MichiganL14-4723.420/371911059.61600.11
2vsIllinois StateW28-015/211741065.9200.20
3@PittsburghW44-4117.623/343373085.5-2000.49
4vsSan José StateW23-3-1.917/282002040.5-700.13
5@BuffaloW24-17-9.521/332792055.0-200.37
6vsBall StateL20-45-11.219/332570212.2-1510.51
7vsKent StateW64-31-6.415/223073090.53311.02
8@ToledoL15-346.915/292320070.32310.24
10vsCentral MichiganL30-42-1.022/362761130.41800.12
11vsAkronW45-40-23.112/202172140.9010.79
12@Eastern MichiganL21-22-7.822/293071157.7510.54
13@Northern IllinoisW42-21-7.121/263385096.3-1200.99
1vsNevadaW52-243.68/141622193.52310.61

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
46.2%
Passing plays
97.4%
Rushing plays
10.6%
Standard downs
39.4%
Passing downs
65.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
0.51
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / 0.35

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.460−0.012021
EPA per play · 2020 — 2021 · 19 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2020Western Michigan
13.3
138.4
2021Western Michigan
8.0
237.4

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.