Skip to content
Ryder Burton

#5Ryder Burton

QB·UAB·2025

Ryder Burton is a Dual-Threat QB for UAB. Ryder's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 114 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 Ryder Burton'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
62/98 Comp/Att708 Pass yards7 Pass TD5 INT63.3% Comp %
Rushing
-4 Rush yards2 Rush TD32 Carries-0.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

30
Attempts
10.1y
Avg depth
4.5y
After catch
60%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.1 yards in the air on an average throw 2.3 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.5 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
0
1
0% · 0y
4
25% · 42y
short
6
67% · 18y
4
75% · 32y
15
67% · 127y
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
  • Volume62
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency0
  • Clutch51
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 consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 1.46 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.79 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Army (SP+ 1).

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

+2.7902.79Wk 4 vs Tennessee: +0.44 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Army: +2.79 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Memphis: +0.80 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs UConn: +0.13 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Rice: -0.05 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs North Texas: -1.53 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs South Florida: +0.36 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Tulsa: -0.49 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
4@TennesseeL24-5615.01/170084.90.44
6vsArmyL13-310.8112.79
8vsMemphisW31-247.620/272513194.2600.80
10@UConnL19-385.121/302092213.2-600.13
11@RiceL17-24-14.818/342132029.9-50-0.05
12vsNorth TexasL24-5313.81/27015.211-1.53
13vsSouth FloridaL18-4811.61/3210066.9100.36
14@TulsaW31-24-10.00/10010.0-20-0.49

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
21.6%
Passing plays
33.9%
Rushing plays
7.5%
Standard downs
19.3%
Passing downs
26.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.24 / 0.41

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.