Skip to content
Dexter Williams II
Dexter Williams II

#5Dexter Williams II

QB·Kennesaw State·2025

Dexter Williams II is a Dual-Threat QB for Kennesaw State. Dexter's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 164 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 Dexter Williams II'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
67/125 Comp/Att787 Pass yards6 Pass TD3 INT53.6% Comp %
Rushing
153 Rush yards3 Rush TD41 Carries3.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume84
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency29
  • Clutch100
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 consistency29th %ile · below avg
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.
  • ▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • ▸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 0.47 from the first to second half of the season.
  • ▸Peak game: 1.96 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Florida International (SP+ -11).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.960−1.96Wk 1 vs Wake Forest: +0.05 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Indiana: -0.55 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Merrimack: +0.32 EPA/play3Wk 7 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.44 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Florida International: +1.96 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UTEP: -0.31 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Jacksonville State: +0.55 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Missouri State: -0.03 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@Wake ForestL9-105.712/331490024.14400.05
2@IndianaL9-5632.41/2-1005.9——-0.55
3vsMerrimackW27-13—9/17880131.64210.32
7vsLouisiana TechW35-7-1.327/362904080.7500.44
9@Florida InternationalW45-26-10.52/27910100.03011.96
10vsUTEPW33-20-17.58/22680112.4230-0.31
12@Jacksonville StateL26-35-6.78/131141194.01710.55
13vsMissouri StateW41-34-10.7—————-80-0.03

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
29.4%
Passing plays
49.6%
Rushing plays
12.1%
Standard downs
25.8%
Passing downs
36.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.01
Passing downs
0.53
Pass / Rush EPA
0.20 / 0.43

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.