Skip to content
Angel H Flores

Angel H Flores

Angel H Flores is a Dual-Threat QB for Central Michigan. Angel's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 127 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 Angel H Flores'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
19/28 Comp/Att195 Pass yards2 Pass TD1 INT67.9% Comp %
Rushing
527 Rush yards8 Rush TD107 Carries4.9 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

17
Attempts
6.9y
Avg depth
5.3y
After catch
59%
Catch rate

The ball travels 6.9 yards in the air on an average throw 1.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 5.3 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
1
0% · 0y
0
short
2
50% · 4y
4
75% · 39y
9
67% · 28y
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
  • Volume67
  • Dual-Threat94
  • Consistency64
  • Clutch69
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 consistency64th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 3 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 0.40 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.07 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -37).

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

+1.0701.07Wk 1 vs San José State: -0.05 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: -0.28 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Michigan: +0.11 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wagner: +0.88 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.52 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Akron: +0.25 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Bowling Green: +0.37 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Massachusetts: +1.07 EPA/play9
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@San José StateW16-14-14.33/3590010.5300-0.05
2@PittsburghL17-458.42/3100025.8180-0.28
3@MichiganL3-6312.47/12240076.27600.11
4vsWagnerW49-101/1221055.63120.88
5vsEastern MichiganW24-13-14.71/221079.213400.52
6@AkronL22-28-13.92/320054.79520.25
8@Bowling GreenW27-6-12.61/110051.37230.37
9vsMassachusettsW38-13-36.62/2750097.46311.07
20vsNorthwesternL7-345.80/10010.080

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
23.6%
Passing plays
17.0%
Rushing plays
26.8%
Standard downs
22.2%
Passing downs
26.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.38
Pass / Rush EPA
0.03 / 0.37

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.