Skip to content
Malik Cunningham
Malik Cunningham

#3Malik Cunningham

QB·Louisville·20212020201914.7 pts line value1st Round

Malik Cunningham is a 3-year Dual-Threat QB for Louisville. Malik's 2021 season ranks in the 90th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 469 plays — a elite rate for the QB. Malik's production has improved each season, a positive development trajectory.

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 Malik Cunningham'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
209/337 Comp/Att2941 Pass yards19 Pass TD6 INT62.0% Comp %
Rushing
1031 Rush yards20 Rush TD173 Carries6.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency90
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency85
  • Clutch72
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)90th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency85th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 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 0.09 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.26 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Duke (SP+ -14).

NIL Market Tier· 2021

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 · 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
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Dillon GabrielOklahoma0.73216.1346.4
Kyle TraskFlorida0.64816.3347.5

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 Ole Miss: +0.50 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Eastern Kentucky: +0.32 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UCF: +0.43 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida State: +0.37 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Wake Forest: +0.60 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Virginia: +0.61 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Boston College: +0.68 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs NC State: +0.20 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Clemson: +0.41 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Syracuse: +0.81 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Duke: +1.26 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kentucky: +0.19 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Air Force: +0.49 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsOle MissL24-4314.822/371911153.07920.50
2vsEastern KentuckyW30-315/232781050.32920.32
3vsUCFW42-354.823/382651185.29920.43
4@Florida StateW31-237.625/392642078.35620.37
5@Wake ForestL34-3710.119/263092084.04620.60
6vsVirginiaL33-347.217/252701086.93800.61
8vsBoston CollegeW28-140.99/171070288.613330.68
9@NC StateL13-2816.111/282191158.17600.20
10vsClemsonL24-3018.712/201740083.713420.41
11vsSyracuseW41-30.313/182094097.91910.81
12@DukeW62-22-13.518/253035099.822421.26
13vsKentuckyL21-5213.412/201450139.13510.19
1vsAir ForceL28-317.413/212071065.76310.49

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
58.4%
Passing plays
93.3%
Rushing plays
31.5%
Standard downs
51.7%
Passing downs
74.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
0.62
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / 0.73

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.850−0.3720202021
EPA per play · 2019 — 2021 · 36 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2019Louisville
9.1
207.2
2020Louisville
7.9
217.8
2021Louisville
14.7
341.6

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.