#10AJ Bianco

QB·Nevada·2025

AJ Bianco is a Dual-Threat QB for Nevada.

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 AJ Bianco'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

27/45 Comp/Att188 Pass yards1 Pass TD1 INT60.0% Comp %

Rushing

10 Rush yards0 Rush TD13 Carries0.8 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

Attempts

9.1y

Avg depth

5.1y

After catch

63%

Catch rate

The ball travels 9.1 yards in the air on an average throw — 0.6 yards deeper than the median. Another 5.1 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

100% · 28y

0% · 0y

short

67% · 29y

57% · 46y

100% · 13y

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
Volume40
Dual-Threat76
Consistency0
Clutch37

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.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 1.50 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.15 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Western Kentucky (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local deals.

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	@Penn State	L11-46	18.1	4/6	28	1	0	98.3	12	0	0.60
3	vsMiddle Tennessee	L13-14	-16.0	9/17	78	0	1	9.2	-1	0	-0.22
4	@Western Kentucky	L16-31	1.6	—	—	—	—	—	7	0	2.15
6	@Fresno State	L17-20	1.8	1/2	-4	0	0	0.8	0	0	-0.64
9	vsBoise State	L3-24	3.1	1/1	0	0	0	0.0	—	—	-1.66
11	@Utah State	L14-51	-3.1	6/11	43	0	0	2.6	-8	0	-0.20
14	vsUNLV	L17-42	4.3	6/8	43	0	0	28.1	0	0	-0.10

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

14.0%

Passing plays

25.6%

Rushing plays

3.8%

Standard downs

11.2%

Passing downs

19.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.24
Passing downs: -0.25
Pass / Rush EPA: -0.33 / 0.28

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