#5Dante Moore

QB·UCLA·2025 2023

Dante Moore is a Dual-Threat QB for UCLA. Dante's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 223 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 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.

2023 Production

Passing

114/213 Comp/Att1610 Pass yards11 Pass TD9 INT53.5% Comp %

Rushing

-83 Rush yards0 Rush TD45 Carries-1.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat61
Consistency59
Clutch62

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 consistency59th %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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.43 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.05 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs North Carolina Central.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

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	vsCoastal Carolina	W27-13	-1.2	7/12	143	2	1	81.7	-4	0	0.35
2	@San Diego State	W35-10	-10.3	17/27	290	3	0	81.0	-3	0	0.61
3	vsNorth Carolina Central	W59-7	—	8/12	182	2	0	97.5	5	0	1.05
4	@Utah	L7-14	8.5	15/35	234	1	1	11.6	-51	0	-0.02
6	vsWashington State	W25-17	4.9	22/44	290	1	2	31.4	-25	0	0.27
7	@Oregon State	L24-36	12.6	14/33	165	1	3	29.1	18	0	0.18
8	@Stanford	W42-7	-11.9	4/5	26	0	0	67.4	11	0	0.47
10	@Arizona	L10-27	14.1	4/7	14	0	0	9.3	—	—	-0.32
13	vsCalifornia	L7-33	-0.1	23/38	266	1	2	17.4	-34	0	-0.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

37.7%

Passing plays

69.8%

Rushing plays

6.1%

Standard downs

31.8%

Passing downs

50.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.18
Passing downs: 0.29
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.23 / 0.20

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.