Skip to content
Tanner Mordecai

#8Tanner Mordecai

Tanner Mordecai is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Wisconsin. Tanner's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 394 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 Tanner Mordecai'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
204/314 Comp/Att2065 Pass yards9 Pass TD4 INT65.0% Comp %
Rushing
303 Rush yards4 Rush TD90 Carries3.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat59
  • Consistency75
  • Clutch56
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 consistency75th %ile · above 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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Peak game: 0.41 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Minnesota (SP+ 0).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.4100.41Wk 1 vs Buffalo: +0.22 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Washington State: +0.16 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia Southern: +0.27 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Purdue: +0.35 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Rutgers: +0.14 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa: -0.11 EPA/play7Wk 11 vs Northwestern: -0.01 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Nebraska: +0.32 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Minnesota: +0.41 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsBuffaloW38-17-15.224/311891220.8200.22
2@Washington StateL22-314.925/402771050.02100.16
3vsGeorgia SouthernW35-14-5.219/302360047.33620.27
4@PurdueW38-17-7.317/271740166.44420.35
6vsRutgersW24-133.517/311451064.65000.14
7vsIowaL6-155.812/201060054.280-0.11
11vsNorthwesternL10-24-1.331/452550044.4250-0.01
12vsNebraskaW24-170.318/281601076.15100.32
13@MinnesotaW28-140.414/221452187.46900.41
20vsLSUL31-3519.127/403783061.6-30

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
56.1%
Passing plays
91.4%
Rushing plays
21.3%
Standard downs
49.6%
Passing downs
73.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.18
Passing downs
0.26
Pass / Rush EPA
0.21 / 0.20

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.800−0.342022
EPA per play · 2021 — 2022 · 24 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021SMU
14.0
321.5
2022SMU
9.0
248.9

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.