#12Grayson Loftis

QB·Charlotte·2025

Grayson Loftis is a Clutch Passer for Charlotte.

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 Grayson Loftis'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

128/232 Comp/Att1415 Pass yards8 Pass TD8 INT55.2% Comp %

Rushing

-86 Rush yards0 Rush TD47 Carries-1.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat0
Consistency0
Clutch100

Player type

Clutch Passer

Elevates on passing downs — 3rd-and-medium, two-minute drills, and pressure situations are where this QB is best.

3rd-down precisionLate-game valueHigh passing-down EPA

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.21 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs App State (SP+ -11).

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

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	vsApp State	L11-34	-11.4	0/1	0	0	0	0.1	—	—	1.21
2	vsNorth Carolina	L3-20	-6.6	8/12	110	0	2	30.2	8	0	-0.11
4	vsRice	L17-28	-14.8	15/31	186	1	0	15.2	-35	0	0.08
6	@South Florida	L26-54	11.6	2/11	-1	0	1	1.5	-8	0	-0.40
7	@Army	L7-24	0.8	8/12	68	1	0	85.7	14	0	0.52
8	vsTemple	L14-49	-5.1	10/22	108	1	1	11.6	3	0	-0.21
9	vsNorth Texas	L20-54	13.8	20/36	295	2	0	37.9	6	0	0.29
11	@East Carolina	L22-48	8.0	20/31	279	3	1	27.6	-14	0	0.14
12	vsUTSA	L7-28	3.7	13/24	100	0	0	7.3	-24	0	-0.27
13	@Georgia	L3-35	24.1	14/27	130	0	2	17.3	-12	0	-0.14
14	@Tulane	L0-27	6.3	18/25	140	0	1	20.5	-24	0	-0.05

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

42.0%

Passing plays

69.4%

Rushing plays

8.2%

Standard downs

35.9%

Passing downs

52.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.16
Passing downs: 0.20
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.03 / -0.19

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