Skip to content
Gunner Stockton

#14Gunner Stockton

QB·Georgia·20256.1 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Gunner Stockton is a Dual-Threat QB for Georgia. Gunner's 2025 season ranks in the 38th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 505 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 Gunner Stockton'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
269/386 Comp/Att2894 Pass yards24 Pass TD5 INT69.7% Comp %
Rushing
462 Rush yards10 Rush TD129 Carries3.6 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

15
Attempts
3.6y
Avg depth
10.6y
After catch
93%
Catch rate

The ball travels 3.6 yards in the air on an average throw 4.2 yards shorter than the median. Another 10.6 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 20y
0
0
short
6
83% · 46y
2
100% · 35y
6
100% · 87y
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

  • Efficiency38
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency84
  • Clutch58
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)38th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency84th %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.
  • 7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.72 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Ole Miss (SP+ 24).

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

+0.7200.72Wk 1 vs Marshall: +0.63 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Austin Peay: +0.32 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Tennessee: +0.48 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Alabama: +0.17 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Kentucky: +0.53 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Auburn: +0.19 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ole Miss: +0.72 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Florida: +0.24 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Mississippi State: +0.49 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Texas: +0.57 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Charlotte: +0.46 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Georgia Tech: -0.05 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Alabama: +0.30 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsMarshallW45-7-4.514/241902099.17320.63
2vsAustin PeayW28-626/342270040.31300.32
3@TennesseeW44-4115.023/313042093.43810.48
5vsAlabamaL21-2414.813/201301078.62200.17
6vsKentuckyW35-141.815/231961192.84820.53
7@AuburnW20-1011.624/372170084.02610.19
8vsOle MissW43-3524.026/312894096.95910.72
10vsFloridaW24-203.520/292232172.01100.24
11@Mississippi StateW41-214.118/292643093.63100.49
12vsTexasW35-1016.224/292294194.42910.57
13vsCharlotteW35-3-26.717/211960178.51100.46
14vsGeorgia TechW16-99.311/21701125.4420-0.05
15vsAlabamaW28-714.820/261563083.93900.30
20vsOle MissL34-3924.018/312031075.2202

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
51.0%
Passing plays
92.4%
Rushing plays
20.1%
Standard downs
45.6%
Passing downs
64.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.34
Passing downs
0.43
Pass / Rush EPA
0.37 / 0.41

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.800−0.12
EPA per play · 2025 · 14 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.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.