Skip to content
Malachi Nelson

#16Malachi Nelson

QB·UTEP·2025

Malachi Nelson is a Dual-Threat QB for UTEP. Malachi's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 198 plays — a developing 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 Malachi Nelson'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
104/190 Comp/Att1163 Pass yards8 Pass TD9 INT54.7% Comp %
Rushing
-13 Rush yards0 Rush TD23 Carries-0.6 Yards/carry
Punting
2 Punts93 Punt yards46.5 Yards/punt47 Long0 Inside 20

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat71
  • Consistency0
  • Clutch100
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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.41 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.63 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs UT Martin.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6300.63Wk 1 vs Utah State: +0.08 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UT Martin: +0.63 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Texas: -0.05 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs UL Monroe: +0.32 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.59 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Liberty: -0.29 EPA/play7
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@Utah StateL16-28-3.122/341781136.8200.08
2vsUT MartinW42-1714/262784052.0-200.63
3@TexasL10-2716.224/362090244.1-30-0.05
4vsUL MonroeL25-31-21.622/464043237.5-1500.32
5vsLouisiana TechL11-30-1.318/3873044.3190-0.59
7vsLibertyL8-19-9.04/1021003.5-140-0.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
55.8%
Passing plays
85.8%
Rushing plays
9.3%
Standard downs
56.1%
Passing downs
55.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.09
Passing downs
0.24
Pass / Rush EPA
0.02 / 0.25

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.