#5Dante Moore

QB·Oregon·20257.4 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Dante Moore is a Dual-Threat QB for Oregon. Dante's 2025 season ranks in the 78th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 430 plays — a above-average 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 Dante Moore'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

296/412 Comp/Att3565 Pass yards30 Pass TD10 INT71.8% Comp %

Rushing

156 Rush yards2 Rush TD73 Carries2.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

Attempts

5.2y

Avg depth

9.9y

After catch

76%

Catch rate

The ball travels 5.2 yards in the air on an average throw — 2.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 9.9 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

—

50% · 62y

50% · 72y

short

86% · 84y

75% · 74y

80% · 68y

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

Efficiency78
Volume100
Dual-Threat64
Consistency79
Clutch87

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)78th %ile · above avg

Game-to-game consistency79th %ile · above avg

Key findings

▸Above-average efficiency for the QB position (78th percentile).
▸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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.16 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.96 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Rutgers (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

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	vsMontana State	W59-13	—	18/23	213	3	0	76.8	18	0	0.73
2	vsOklahoma State	W69-3	-15.1	16/21	266	3	0	86.0	11	0	0.92
3	@Northwestern	W34-14	5.8	16/20	178	1	1	90.8	5	0	0.35
4	vsOregon State	W41-7	-15.9	21/31	305	4	0	81.4	53	0	0.64
5	@Penn State	W30-24	18.1	29/39	248	3	0	80.7	35	0	0.34
7	vsIndiana	L20-30	32.4	21/34	186	1	2	33.2	-27	0	0.07
8	@Rutgers	W56-10	1.0	15/20	290	4	1	99.1	49	0	0.96
9	vsWisconsin	W21-7	-4.4	9/15	86	0	0	36.4	-13	0	-0.07
11	@Iowa	W18-16	19.7	13/21	112	0	1	39.7	46	0	-0.03
12	vsMinnesota	W42-13	1.5	27/30	306	2	0	91.4	6	0	0.67
13	vsUSC	W42-27	16.9	22/30	257	2	1	90.0	-3	0	0.46
14	@Washington	W26-14	18.4	20/29	286	1	0	87.3	11	1	0.54
20	vsIndiana	L22-56	32.4	24/39	285	2	1	67.9	-28	0	—
20	vsTexas Tech	W23-0	27.6	26/33	234	0	1	62.3	-12	0	—
20	vsJames Madison	W51-34	12.3	19/27	313	4	2	99.1	5	1	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

48.4%

Passing plays

93.9%

Rushing plays

10.8%

Standard downs

43.6%

Passing downs

61.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.34
Passing downs: 0.57
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.46 / 0.22

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 · 2025 · 15 games

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.