#7Spencer Rattler

QB·South Carolina·2023 2020

Spencer Rattler is a Dual-Threat QB for South Carolina. Spencer's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 481 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 Spencer Rattler'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.

2023 Production

Passing

275/399 Comp/Att3186 Pass yards19 Pass TD8 INT68.9% Comp %

Rushing

102 Rush yards4 Rush TD98 Carries1.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency71
Clutch45

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 consistency71th %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.
▸6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.21 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.06 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Furman.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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	vsNorth Carolina	L17-31	7.4	30/39	353	0	0	46.6	-22	0	0.06
2	vsFurman	W47-21	—	25/27	345	3	0	93.5	8	1	1.06
3	@Georgia	L14-24	31.2	22/42	256	1	2	72.1	35	0	0.25
4	vsMississippi State	W37-30	0.5	18/20	288	3	0	96.7	43	0	0.85
5	@Tennessee	L20-41	16.2	24/35	169	0	1	33.6	19	1	0.01
7	vsFlorida	L39-41	6.8	23/30	313	4	1	92.8	46	0	0.77
8	@Missouri	L12-34	19.3	23/40	217	0	1	19.4	-15	0	-0.06
9	@Texas A&M	L17-30	15.6	20/33	176	1	0	38.9	-42	0	0.05
10	vsJacksonville State	W38-28	-1.6	27/38	399	2	1	66.2	-11	1	0.58
11	vsVanderbilt	W47-6	-12.7	28/36	351	3	1	76.8	1	1	0.74
12	vsKentucky	W17-14	10.5	19/27	207	2	0	72.8	24	0	0.47
13	vsClemson	L7-16	10.5	16/32	112	0	1	35.6	16	0	-0.02

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

62.6%

Passing plays

96.4%

Rushing plays

18.2%

Standard downs

53.0%

Passing downs

78.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.33
Passing downs: 0.35
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.32 / 0.47

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2020 · 11 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.