#12Dru Deshields

QB·Kent State·2025

Dru Deshields is a Volume Passer for Kent State. Dru's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 270 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 Dru Deshields'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

136/240 Comp/Att2030 Pass yards18 Pass TD3 INT56.7% Comp %

Rushing

38 Rush yards3 Rush TD61 Carries0.6 Yards/carry

Punting

3 Punts122 Punt yards40.7 Yards/punt58 Long3 Inside 20

Air yards

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

Attempts

2.8y

Avg depth

3.7y

After catch

60%

Catch rate

The ball travels 2.8 yards in the air on an average throw — 5.0 yards shorter than the median. Another 3.7 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

—

short

56% · 26y

75% · 9y

57% · 28y

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

Efficiency3
Volume100
Dual-Threat22
Consistency80
Clutch43

Player type

Volume Passer

High-rep offense that leans on this QB's arm — value comes through cumulative production across a high number of plays.

High play countFranchise-volume role

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)3th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency80th %ile · above 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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Peak game: 0.56 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Akron (SP+ -14).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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	vsMerrimack	W21-17	—	6/10	118	1	0	10.2	2	0	0.54
2	@Texas Tech	L14-62	27.6	7/15	116	1	0	59.9	22	1	0.29
3	vsBuffalo	L28-31	-7.5	22/32	279	2	0	65.4	37	1	0.52
4	@Florida State	L10-66	7.2	9/18	129	1	1	41.7	-9	0	0.01
7	vsMassachusetts	W42-6	-36.6	10/18	148	4	0	19.9	-6	0	0.18
8	@Toledo	L10-45	6.0	12/23	159	1	1	25.4	-20	0	0.24
9	vsBowling Green	W24-21	-12.6	13/22	160	1	0	65.3	15	0	0.34
11	@Ball State	L13-17	-23.0	15/27	212	0	0	33.9	8	0	0.07
12	@Akron	W42-35	-13.9	17/25	317	5	0	72.3	-7	0	0.56
13	vsCentral Michigan	L16-28	-8.8	14/28	185	0	0	6.9	-6	1	0.11
14	@Northern Illinois	W35-31	-16.7	11/22	207	2	1	43.4	2	0	0.17

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

45.9%

Passing plays

87.4%

Rushing plays

12.9%

Standard downs

38.5%

Passing downs

59.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.28
Passing downs: 0.30
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.34 / 0.01

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