Skip to content
Noah Kim

#1Noah Kim

Noah Kim is a Dual-Threat QB for Eastern Michigan. Noah's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 462 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 Noah Kim'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
247/402 Comp/Att2817 Pass yards18 Pass TD11 INT61.4% Comp %
Rushing
186 Rush yards6 Rush TD79 Carries2.4 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

80
Attempts
7.8y
Avg depth
4.6y
After catch
64%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.8 yards in the air on an average throw about the median for the position. Another 4.6 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
3
33% · 25y
4
0% · 0y
6
33% · 71y
short
23
78% · 151y
18
78% · 143y
26
62% · 63y
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 · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat74
  • Consistency90
  • 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)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency90th %ile · elite
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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.42 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Ball State (SP+ -23).

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

+0.4200.42Wk 1 vs Texas State: +0.42 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Long Island University: +0.28 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kentucky: +0.22 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Louisiana: +0.12 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Central Michigan: +0.20 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Buffalo: +0.22 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Northern Illinois: +0.16 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Miami (OH): +0.31 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ohio: +0.38 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Bowling Green: +0.23 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ball State: +0.42 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Western Michigan: +0.29 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@Texas StateL27-522.323/342481051.9-1400.42
2vsLong Island UniversityL23-2818/291892042.83800.28
3@KentuckyL23-481.825/423301159.61910.22
4vsLouisianaW34-31-10.121/312261147.11210.12
5@Central MichiganL13-24-8.817/281750126.01810.20
6@BuffaloL30-31-7.519/311682049.31010.22
7vsNorthern IllinoisW16-10-16.719/321471144.93200.16
8@Miami (OH)L30-44-3.420/363094236.8-200.31
9vsOhioL21-28-4.021/302592057.13010.38
11vsBowling GreenW27-21-12.622/392101051.92800.23
12@Ball StateW24-9-23.018/292291243.42110.42
14vsWestern MichiganL21-31-1.424/4132723-1.0-600.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
60.1%
Passing plays
100.0%
Rushing plays
17.7%
Standard downs
52.7%
Passing downs
76.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.13
Passing downs
0.46
Pass / Rush EPA
0.28 / 0.27

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.