Skip to content
Lorenzo Lingard

#27Lorenzo Lingard

RB·Akron·2023

Lorenzo Lingard is a Pass-Catching Back for Akron. Lorenzo's 2023 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 138 plays — a developing 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 Lorenzo Lingard'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

Rushing
641 Rush yards4 Rush TD143 Carries4.5 Yards/carry
Receiving
37 Receptions356 Rec yards2 Rec TD9.6 Yards/rec
Returns
5 Kick returns52 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume64
  • Explosiveness30
  • Consistency67
  • Receiving75
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency67th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 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 — 0.37 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.26 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Morgan State.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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 · 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
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.2601.26Wk 1 vs Temple: +0.70 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Morgan State: +1.26 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kentucky: +0.07 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Indiana: +0.51 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Northern Illinois: +0.20 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Central Michigan: -0.10 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Bowling Green: +0.44 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Kent State: +0.48 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Miami (OH): -0.04 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.04 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Ohio: +0.23 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@TempleL21-24-21.07243.4017710.70
2vsMorgan StateW24-217243.4022101.26
3@KentuckyL3-3510.57304.3044100.07
4@IndianaL27-29-7.4141138.112800.51
5vsBuffaloL10-13-15.29475.202120
6vsNorthern IllinoisL14-55-7.512494.1033200.20
7@Central MichiganL10-17-19.110454.50540-0.10
8@Bowling GreenL14-41-7.812564.7122300.44
10vsKent StateW31-27-26.3221064.8124900.48
11@Miami (OH)L0-192.811474.305200-0.04
12@Eastern MichiganL27-30-12.326712.7141500.04
13vsOhioL14-25-1.66294.8055410.23

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
22.4%
Passing plays
9.2%
Rushing plays
43.6%
Standard downs
29.1%
Passing downs
10.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.13
Passing downs
0.63
Pass / Rush EPA
0.34 / 0.17

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

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.