Skip to content
John Mateer

#10John Mateer

John Mateer is a Dual-Threat QB for Oklahoma. John's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 532 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 John Mateer'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
247/397 Comp/Att2885 Pass yards14 Pass TD11 INT62.2% Comp %
Rushing
431 Rush yards8 Rush TD149 Carries2.9 Yards/carry
Punting
1 Punts40 Punt yards40.0 Yards/punt40 Long1 Inside 20

Air yards

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

18
Attempts
12.4y
Avg depth
8.9y
After catch
67%
Catch rate

The ball travels 12.4 yards in the air on an average throw 4.6 yards deeper than the median. Another 8.9 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 24y
2
100% · 82y
1
0% · 0y
short
1
100% · 13y
3
33% · 15y
9
78% · 103y
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

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat59
  • Consistency74
  • Clutch85
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 consistency74th %ile · average
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.71 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Illinois State.

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

+0.7100.71Wk 1 vs Illinois State: +0.71 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Michigan: +0.35 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Temple: +0.39 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Auburn: +0.30 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Texas: -0.07 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs South Carolina: +0.35 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ole Miss: -0.02 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Tennessee: +0.14 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Alabama: +0.19 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Missouri: +0.04 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs LSU: +0.27 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsIllinois StateW35-330/373923180.02410.71
2vsMichiganW24-1312.421/342701179.27420.35
3@TempleW42-3-5.120/342821172.46310.39
4vsAuburnW24-1711.624/362711065.82910.30
7vsTexasL6-2316.220/382020342.850-0.07
8@South CarolinaW26-75.918/261501087.51400.35
9vsOle MissL26-3424.017/312231045.1170-0.02
10@TennesseeW33-2715.019/291590172.38010.14
12@AlabamaW23-2114.815/231380071.72310.19
13vsMissouriW17-614.414/301732067.66000.04
14vsLSUW17-1310.323/383182354.02700.27
20vsAlabamaL24-3414.826/413072172.3151

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
67.4%
Passing plays
98.1%
Rushing plays
33.9%
Standard downs
59.6%
Passing downs
83.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.11
Passing downs
0.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.20 / 0.20

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.900−0.17
EPA per play · 2024 · 12 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.