#1Anthony Garcia

QB·Utah State·2025

Anthony Garcia is a Dual-Threat QB for Utah State. Anthony's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 52 plays — a elite 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 Anthony Garcia'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

6/7 Comp/Att79 Pass yards4 Pass TD0 INT85.7% Comp %

Rushing

75 Rush yards1 Rush TD11 Carries6.8 Yards/carry

Receiving

20 Receptions348 Rec yards2 Rec TD17.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency100
Volume19
Dual-Threat100
Consistency84
Clutch100

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)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency84th %ile · above avg

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.08 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.60 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs San José State (SP+ -14).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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	vsUTEP	W28-16	-17.5	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.76
2	@Texas A&M	L22-44	20.7	1/1	3	1	0	87.5	—	—	0.88
3	vsAir Force	W49-30	-3.2	—	—	—	—	—	17	1	1.20
4	vsMcNeese	W48-7	—	—	—	—	—	—	8	0	-0.06
5	@Vanderbilt	L35-55	20.3	1/1	15	0	0	99.5	—	—	0.91
7	@Hawai'i	L26-44	1.7	1/1	30	1	0	100.0	—	—	0.94
8	vsSan José State	W30-25	-14.3	1/1	5	0	0	58.1	10	0	1.60
11	vsNevada	W51-14	-13.4	—	—	—	—	—	6	0	0.98
12	@UNLV	L26-29	4.3	—	—	—	—	—	21	0	0.23
13	@Fresno State	W28-17	1.8	2/2	26	2	0	99.1	10	0	0.44
14	vsBoise State	L24-25	3.1	0/1	0	0	0	2.6	-3	0	1.01
20	vsWashington State	L21-34	3.8	—	—	—	—	—	6	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

6.5%

Passing plays

10.3%

Rushing plays

2.6%

Standard downs

6.1%

Passing downs

7.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.36
Passing downs: 1.08
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.70 / 0.41

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