#9Liam Szarka

QB·Air Force·2025

Liam Szarka is a Dual-Threat QB for Air Force. Liam's 2025 season ranks in the 55th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 308 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 Liam Szarka'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

75/120 Comp/Att1294 Pass yards9 Pass TD5 INT62.5% Comp %

Rushing

922 Rush yards13 Rush TD190 Carries4.9 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency55
Volume100
Dual-Threat78
Consistency70
Clutch69

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)55th %ile · average

Game-to-game consistency70th %ile · average

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.
▸5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.52 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.89 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Bucknell.

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

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	vsBucknell	W49-13	—	2/2	47	0	0	96.8	7	0	0.89
3	@Utah State	L30-49	-3.1	6/14	67	0	1	34.9	40	3	0.31
4	vsBoise State	L37-49	3.1	13/18	246	2	1	93.9	110	1	0.76
5	vsHawai'i	L35-44	1.7	10/12	278	3	1	88.5	139	0	0.81
6	@Navy	L31-34	6.2	11/19	212	2	0	80.7	152	2	0.47
7	@UNLV	L48-51	4.3	10/17	175	1	0	79.3	136	2	0.47
8	vsWyoming	W24-21	-11.3	3/8	33	0	0	47.7	141	1	0.21
10	vsArmy	L17-20	0.8	13/17	161	0	2	49.3	91	2	0.27
11	@San José State	W26-16	-14.3	5/10	41	1	0	33.6	87	2	0.19
12	@UConn	L16-26	5.1	2/3	34	0	0	5.7	19	0	-0.52

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

44.8%

Passing plays

81.0%

Rushing plays

34.4%

Standard downs

39.2%

Passing downs

61.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.36
Passing downs: 0.50
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.61 / 0.29

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