#9Dane Evans

QB·Tulsa·2016 20157.9 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Dane Evans is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Tulsa. Dane's 2016 season ranks in the 40th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 440 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 Dane Evans'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

Passing

259/435 Comp/Att3348 Pass yards32 Pass TD12 INT59.5% Comp %

Rushing

-29 Rush yards4 Rush TD47 Carries-0.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2016 · vs QB peers

Efficiency40
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency73
Clutch57

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)40th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency73th %ile · average

Key findings

▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.20 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.99 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Navy (SP+ 7).

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Stetson Bennett	Georgia	2022	509	0.635	12.5	323.0

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

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	vsSan José State	W45-10	-13.6	12/23	198	1	0	43.6	-19	0	0.26
2	@Ohio State	L3-48	22.4	15/32	127	0	4	5.2	-20	0	-0.34
3	vsNorth Carolina A&T	W58-21	—	19/29	282	3	1	76.6	-6	0	0.55
4	@Fresno State	W48-41	-16.9	24/34	281	4	1	94.7	-17	1	0.46
6	vsSMU	W43-40	-10.8	25/44	247	1	1	51.4	1	1	0.19
7	@Houston	L31-38	10.1	27/51	365	1	1	50.1	-8	1	0.34
8	vsTulane	W50-27	-14.6	14/23	236	3	0	93.2	-6	0	0.52
9	@Memphis	W59-30	7.7	20/33	234	2	0	87.0	9	0	0.55
10	vsEast Carolina	W45-24	-9.0	22/38	274	3	0	74.2	-16	0	0.22
11	@Navy	L40-42	6.8	16/27	369	4	1	97.5	7	1	0.99
12	@UCF	W35-20	-2.2	12/25	126	2	1	36.4	14	0	-0.12
13	vsCincinnati	W40-37	-3.6	25/38	305	3	2	82.4	10	0	0.46
1	vsCentral Michigan	W55-10	-6.1	28/38	304	5	0	89.9	22	0	0.55

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

42.1%

Passing plays

96.3%

Rushing plays

4.5%

Standard downs

33.2%

Passing downs

63.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.31
Passing downs: 0.40
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.33 / 0.60

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2015 — 2016 · 26 games

Season	Team	Line value	WEPA/play	YoY Δ	Total EPA
2015	Tulsa	8.6	0.429	—	260.1
2016	Tulsa	7.9	0.490	+0.06	210.7

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.