Skip to content
Dean Connors

#44Dean Connors

Dean Connors is a Featured Back for Houston.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Dean Connors'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

Rushing
977 Rush yards6 Rush TD200 Carries4.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
34 Receptions254 Rec yards3 Rec TD7.5 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns1 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume74
  • Explosiveness38
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving69
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.20 from the first to second half of the season.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+0.3400.34Wk 1 vs Stephen F. Austin: -0.29 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Rice: +0.02 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Colorado: -0.27 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Oregon State: -0.25 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Texas Tech: -0.34 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Oklahoma State: +0.25 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Arizona: +0.27 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Arizona State: -0.15 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs West Virginia: +0.04 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UCF: +0.28 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs TCU: +0.18 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Baylor: -0.10 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsStephen F. AustinW27-015503.30210-0.29
2@RiceW35-9-14.81313210.222300.02
3vsColoradoW36-20-8.322894.012220-0.27
5@Oregon StateW27-24-15.917533.104330-0.25
6vsTexas TechL11-3527.613312.40190-0.34
7@Oklahoma StateW39-17-15.115835.512710.25
8vsArizonaW31-2812.0201005.0033800.27
9@Arizona StateW24-163.920482.402170-0.15
10vsWest VirginiaL35-45-6.813715.5032700.04
11@UCFW30-27-1.210686.8021610.28
13vsTCUL14-178.312756.3054710.18
14@BaylorW31-241.414513.613220-0.10
20vsLSUW38-3510.3161267.913120

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
25.9%
Passing plays
9.8%
Rushing plays
38.3%
Standard downs
28.6%
Passing downs
19.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.03
Passing downs
0.04
Pass / Rush EPA
0.31 / -0.08

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.