#2Robby Ashford

QB·Wake Forest·2025

Robby Ashford is a Dual-Threat QB for Wake Forest. Robby's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 442 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 Robby Ashford'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

191/322 Comp/Att2472 Pass yards12 Pass TD8 INT59.3% Comp %

Rushing

554 Rush yards9 Rush TD130 Carries4.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency3
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency72
Clutch60

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)3th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency72th %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.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.20 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.90 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Delaware (SP+ -11).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Star

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

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	vsKennesaw State	W10-9	-5.4	20/28	218	0	0	29.2	42	1	0.13
2	vsWestern Carolina	W42-10	—	13/22	227	1	1	62.6	66	1	0.38
3	vsNC State	L24-34	4.8	21/35	252	0	2	24.3	21	1	0.01
5	vsGeorgia Tech	L29-30	9.3	13/28	219	0	0	55.8	82	1	0.39
6	@Virginia Tech	W30-23	-10.1	24/39	256	1	1	53.0	22	0	0.31
9	vsSMU	W13-12	13.4	4/10	33	1	0	26.4	-5	0	-0.10
10	@Florida State	L7-42	7.2	12/21	93	0	1	41.8	59	0	0.10
11	@Virginia	W16-9	11.1	7/16	46	0	0	50.4	57	0	0.12
12	vsNorth Carolina	W28-12	-6.6	15/25	191	1	0	65.7	52	1	0.48
13	vsDelaware	W52-14	-10.9	15/22	292	3	1	83.5	64	1	0.90
14	@Duke	L32-49	6.6	27/43	342	2	1	57.6	44	1	0.31
20	vsMississippi State	W43-29	4.1	20/33	303	3	1	76.4	50	2	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

55.2%

Passing plays

84.4%

Rushing plays

28.8%

Standard downs

48.5%

Passing downs

68.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.24
Passing downs: 0.34
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.26 / 0.41

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