Skip to content
Kendre Miller

#33Kendre Miller

RB·TCU·20223.9 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Kendre Miller is a Featured Back for TCU. Kendre's 2022 season ranks in the 75th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 243 plays — a above-average 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 Kendre Miller'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.

2022 Production

Rushing
1399 Rush yards17 Rush TD224 Carries6.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
16 Receptions116 Rec yards0 Rec TD7.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2022 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency75
  • Volume73
  • Explosiveness64
  • Consistency76
  • Receiving38
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)75th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency76th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the RB position (75th percentile).
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.21 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.60 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Tarleton State.

NIL Market Tier· 2022

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 · 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
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Hassan HaskinsMichigan0.3804.8106.4
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6000.60Wk 1 vs Colorado: +0.26 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Tarleton State: +0.60 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs SMU: +0.49 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Oklahoma: +0.44 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Kansas: +0.21 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Oklahoma State: +0.11 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Kansas State: +0.36 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs West Virginia: +0.43 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Texas Tech: +0.09 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Texas: +0.17 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Baylor: +0.26 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Iowa State: +0.27 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Kansas State: -0.19 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs Michigan: +0.01 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@ColoradoW38-13-20.48526.511100.26
2vsTarleton StateW59-1713564.3112100.60
4@SMUW42-344.7171428.4111000.49
5vsOklahomaW55-2415.41313610.521300.44
6@KansasW38-312.918884.912500.21
7vsOklahoma StateW43-4011.3221044.7211700.11
8vsKansas StateW38-2821.4291535.3211800.36
9@West VirginiaW41-312.41212010.011-100.43
10vsTexas TechW34-248.5211587.511500.09
11@TexasW17-1023.1211386.6111000.17
12@BaylorW29-2811.710414.1121400.26
13vsIowa StateW62-145.315724.8211200.27
14vsKansas StateL28-3121.417824.81210-0.19
1vsMichiganW51-4532.08577.100.01

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
25.4%
Passing plays
5.3%
Rushing plays
43.1%
Standard downs
30.2%
Passing downs
14.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.24
Pass / Rush EPA
0.21 / 0.24

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.680−0.27
EPA per play · 2022 · 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.