Skip to content
Richard McQuarley
Richard McQuarley

#3Richard McQuarley

RB·New Mexico·20162.7 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Richard McQuarley is a Explosive Back for New Mexico. Richard's 2016 season ranks in the 68th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 140 plays — a average 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 Richard McQuarley'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.

2016 Production

Rushing
656 Rush yards18 Rush TD143 Carries4.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
5 Receptions94 Rec yards0 Rec TD18.8 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns7 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2016 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency68
  • Volume49
  • Explosiveness32
  • Consistency67
  • Receiving55
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)68th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency67th %ile · average
Key findings
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.87 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Wyoming (SP+ -7).

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
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Clyde Edwards-HelaireLSU0.4905.0105.8
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4
Nick WilsonArizona0.4105.2102.5
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8700.87Wk 1 vs South Dakota: +0.04 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs New Mexico State: -0.11 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Rutgers: +0.76 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs San José State: +0.57 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Boise State: +0.57 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Air Force: +0.05 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UL Monroe: +0.53 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Hawai'i: +0.35 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Nevada: +0.03 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Utah State: -0.30 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Colorado State: +0.18 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Wyoming: +0.87 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs UTSA: +0.50 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsSouth DakotaW48-2113554.220.04
2@New Mexico StateL31-32-17.25122.41-0.11
3@RutgersL28-37-14.96528.710.76
5vsSan José StateW48-41-13.616835.230.57
6vsBoise StateL21-4911.57405.700.57
7vsAir ForceW45-404.414312.220.05
8vsUL MonroeW59-17-21.39687.610.53
9@Hawai'iW28-21-10.16172.811600.35
10vsNevadaW35-26-13.014433.111500.03
11@Utah StateW24-21-4.414443.10-0.30
12@Colorado StateL31-490.87223.110.18
13vsWyomingW56-35-6.9151218.1325800.87
1vsUTSAW23-20-11.217684.0212500.50

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
17.3%
Passing plays
5.2%
Rushing plays
21.1%
Standard downs
20.1%
Passing downs
10.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.25
Passing downs
0.44
Pass / Rush EPA
0.58 / 0.27

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.980−0.42
EPA per play · 2016 · 13 games

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.