← New Search ↗ Social Card

Evan Forrest Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2003-02-03 Country: Canada
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2019-20 Whitecourt Wolverines AJHL 2 0 0 0 0.000
2020-21 Drayton Valley Thunder AJHL 5 1 1 2 0.400 0.1342 0.1342 0.3707 0.3707
2021-22 Drayton Valley Thunder AJHL 54 8 12 20 0.370 0.1242 0.1253 0.3433 0.3464
2022-23 Estevan Bruins SJHL 56 9 12 21 0.375 0.0961 0.0936 0.2779 0.2706
2023-24 Nipawin Hawks SJHL 56 18 25 43 0.768 0.1967 0.1822 0.5691 0.5271
Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2025-26 Concordia D3 MIAC 20 5 8 13 0.650
2024-25 Concordia D3 MIAC 14 2 3 5 0.357
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.13
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.36
2024-25 · Concordia
+184.3% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

30%
NCAA D1
30%
NCAA D2/D3
38%
Age-Out / Club
2%
Pro / Other

NCAAe Rankings

#33008
Forward overall
#1998
Forward born in 2003

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.47 PPG
→ Bentley (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.34 PPG
→ Notre Dame (0.18 D1 FR PPG)
0.18 Developing
NCAAe PPG
QMJHL · 2012-13 · 0.52 PPG
→ Boston University
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.59 PPG
→ Minnesota State (0.22 D1 FR PPG)
0.31 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.50 PPG
→ Brown (0.10 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Developing
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Tufts · 2021-22
1.087 Elite
actual D2/3 PPG
Milwaukee School of Engineering · 2018-19
0.864 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Utica · 2011-12
0.577 Average
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.