Skip to content
Landy Lyddy

Landy Lyddy

Landy Lyddy is a Dual-Threat QB for Southern Miss. Landy's 2025 season produced 18.6 total EPA across 40 plays.

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 Landy Lyddy'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
34/52 Comp/Att406 Pass yards2 Pass TD3 INT65.4% Comp %
Rushing
12 Rush yards1 Rush TD6 Carries2.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency90
  • Volume62
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency0
  • Clutch0
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)90th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Peak game: 1.22 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Arkansas State (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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

+1.2201.22Wk 2 vs Jackson State: +1.03 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs App State: -1.19 EPA/play3Wk 11 vs Arkansas State: +1.22 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Texas State: +0.01 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
2vsJackson StateW38-201/1110085.01.03
3vsApp StateW38-22-11.40/10000.3-10-1.19
11@Arkansas StateW27-21-8.84/61281193.7411.22
12vsTexas StateL14-412.329/442671231.2900.01

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
21.7%
Passing plays
37.2%
Rushing plays
4.0%
Standard downs
21.4%
Passing downs
22.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.56
Passing downs
0.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.41 / 1.19

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.