#6Andrew Peasley

QB·Wyoming·2023

Andrew Peasley is a Dual-Threat QB for Wyoming. Andrew's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 304 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 Andrew Peasley'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

166/266 Comp/Att1991 Pass yards20 Pass TD5 INT62.4% Comp %

Rushing

419 Rush yards7 Rush TD110 Carries3.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency72
Clutch72

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 consistency72th %ile · average

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.
▸6 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 0.08 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.86 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Nevada (SP+ -22).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsTexas Tech	W35-33	6.1	18/34	149	2	0	75.6	68	1	0.28
2	vsPortland State	W31-17	—	11/16	201	3	1	82.6	43	0	0.81
4	vsApp State	W22-19	3.8	5/15	31	0	1	6.2	-15	1	-0.33
5	vsNew Mexico	W35-26	-16.5	16/25	194	1	0	48.3	34	1	0.64
6	vsFresno State	W24-19	2.5	19/27	183	3	0	89.5	25	0	0.38
7	@Air Force	L27-34	5.9	15/25	212	3	0	90.4	48	1	—
9	@Boise State	L7-32	5.9	10/20	85	1	1	9.9	-17	0	-0.14
10	vsColorado State	W24-15	-8.9	15/22	140	2	1	68.6	49	0	0.41
11	@UNLV	L14-34	1.4	11/22	144	0	1	38.6	69	1	0.41
12	vsHawai'i	W42-9	-16.4	14/17	319	3	0	95.1	3	0	0.68
13	@Nevada	W42-6	-22.0	12/18	165	2	0	94.0	96	2	0.86
20	vsToledo	W16-15	3.7	20/25	168	0	0	62.9	16	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

49.8%

Passing plays

91.7%

Rushing plays

20.1%

Standard downs

46.9%

Passing downs

56.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.31
Passing downs: 0.47
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.29 / 0.60

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