#4Tucker Gleason

QB·Toledo·2025

Tucker Gleason is a Dual-Threat QB for Toledo. Tucker's 2025 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 345 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 Tucker Gleason'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

207/320 Comp/Att2515 Pass yards21 Pass TD9 INT64.7% Comp %

Rushing

144 Rush yards4 Rush TD46 Carries3.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency8
Volume100
Dual-Threat85
Consistency72
Clutch79

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)8th %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.
▸6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 1.02 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Akron (SP+ -14).

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	@Kentucky	L16-24	1.8	23/40	270	1	1	36.0	2	1	0.22
2	vsWestern Kentucky	W45-21	1.6	7/12	155	2	0	92.0	21	0	0.85
3	vsMorgan State	W60-0	—	13/17	174	1	0	75.3	—	—	0.60
4	@Western Michigan	L13-14	-1.4	15/30	89	0	2	11.7	-4	0	-0.35
5	vsAkron	W45-3	-13.9	16/19	237	3	0	90.8	37	1	1.02
7	@Bowling Green	L23-28	-12.6	19/30	264	1	1	39.5	1	1	0.17
8	vsKent State	W45-10	-19.3	21/28	294	4	0	79.8	1	0	0.84
9	@Washington State	L7-28	3.8	26/41	238	1	1	33.0	13	0	0.00
11	vsNorthern Illinois	W42-3	-16.7	25/31	309	2	0	92.6	9	1	0.73
12	@Miami (OH)	W24-3	-3.4	18/31	169	2	2	60.6	23	0	0.14
13	vsBall State	W38-9	-23.0	15/24	218	4	2	46.9	10	0	0.43
14	@Central Michigan	W21-3	-8.8	9/17	98	0	0	48.1	31	0	0.28

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

44.7%

Passing plays

86.1%

Rushing plays

8.6%

Standard downs

38.7%

Passing downs

58.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.22
Passing downs: 0.42
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.32 / 0.33

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