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)0.46Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
- EPA per play (efficiency)0.05Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
- Total EPA (value)0.51Beats 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 Matt Vezza'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.
2026 Production
Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs QB peers
- Efficiency8
- Volume60
- Dual-Threat99
- Consistency50
- Clutch100
A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.
- ▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
- ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
- ▸Peak game: 0.39 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Jacksonville State (SP+ -7).
NIL Market Tier· 2026
On3 valuation ↗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
Usage & Situational · Pro
- Standard downs
- 0.10
- Passing downs
- 0.76
- Pass / Rush EPA
- 0.23 / 0.40
Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).