Skip to content
Noah Fifita

#1Noah Fifita

QB·Arizona·2025202310.0 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Noah Fifita is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Arizona. Noah's 2023 season ranks in the 80th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 342 plays — a above-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 Noah Fifita'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

Passing
241/333 Comp/Att2869 Pass yards25 Pass TD6 INT72.4% Comp %
Rushing
-33 Rush yards0 Rush TD38 Carries-0.9 Yards/carry
Punting
2 Punts90 Punt yards45.0 Yards/punt49 Long1 Inside 20

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

29
Attempts
5.7y
Avg depth
7.6y
After catch
76%
Catch rate

The ball travels 5.7 yards in the air on an average throw 2.1 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.6 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
100% · 41y
0
0
short
11
91% · 121y
4
25% · 6y
12
75% · 94y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency80
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat79
  • Consistency70
  • Clutch90
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)80th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency70th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (80th percentile).
  • 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.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.38 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.99 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Arizona State (SP+ -11).

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 · 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
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9900.99Wk 1 vs Northern Arizona: -0.28 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs UTEP: -0.25 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Stanford: +0.43 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Washington: +0.32 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs USC: +0.49 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Washington State: +0.39 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Oregon State: +0.39 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UCLA: +0.70 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Colorado: +0.21 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Utah: +0.55 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Arizona State: +0.99 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsNorthern ArizonaW38-32/270047.8-0.28
3vsUTEPW31-10-16.22/2150018.5-40-0.25
4@StanfordW21-20-11.94/4470085.4900.43
5vsWashingtonL24-3116.427/392323173.91900.32
6@USCL41-439.425/353035176.91200.49
7@Washington StateW44-64.934/433420090.5-700.39
9vsOregon StateW27-2412.625/322753176.2-2700.39
10vsUCLAW27-109.725/323003193.7400.70
11@ColoradoW34-31-4.921/352142061.8-400.21
12vsUtahW42-188.522/302532097.60.55
13@Arizona StateW59-23-11.330/415275198.20.99
20vsOklahomaW38-2415.024/383542170.6-350

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
46.7%
Passing plays
79.7%
Rushing plays
5.8%
Standard downs
38.5%
Passing downs
67.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.36
Passing downs
0.61
Pass / Rush EPA
0.47 / 0.30

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.110−0.402025
EPA per play · 2023 — 2025 · 25 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2023Arizona
10.0
236.2
2025Arizona
3.8
155.1

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.