#0Aidan Chiles

QB·Michigan State·2025

Aidan Chiles is a Dual-Threat QB for Michigan State. Aidan's 2025 season ranks in the 28th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 266 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 Aidan Chiles'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

128/203 Comp/Att1392 Pass yards10 Pass TD3 INT63.1% Comp %

Rushing

227 Rush yards6 Rush TD81 Carries2.8 Yards/carry

Punting

1 Punts40 Punt yards40.0 Yards/punt40 Long0 Inside 20

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency28
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency81
Clutch92

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)28th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency81th %ile · above avg

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.
▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.75 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Youngstown State.

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	vsWestern Michigan	W23-6	-1.4	17/23	155	1	0	50.9	8	0	0.35
2	vsBoston College	W42-40	-8.5	19/29	231	4	0	86.8	39	1	0.41
3	vsYoungstown State	W41-24	—	22/29	270	1	1	76.6	76	0	0.75
4	@USC	L31-45	16.9	12/21	212	3	0	—	31	1	0.53
6	@Nebraska	L27-38	6.2	9/23	85	0	2	65.6	23	2	0.18
7	vsUCLA	L13-38	-8.7	8/17	66	0	0	25.6	9	1	0.20
8	@Indiana	L13-38	32.4	27/33	243	1	0	94.8	48	0	0.51
9	vsMichigan	L20-31	12.4	14/28	130	0	0	26.8	-7	1	-0.05

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

53.6%

Passing plays

84.2%

Rushing plays

22.9%

Standard downs

46.8%

Passing downs

67.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.24
Passing downs: 0.51
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.29 / 0.59

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