#1Conner Weigman

QB·Houston·20256.0 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Conner Weigman is a Dual-Threat QB for Houston. Conner's 2025 season ranks in the 30th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 532 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 Conner Weigman'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

232/356 Comp/Att2705 Pass yards25 Pass TD9 INT65.2% Comp %

Rushing

703 Rush yards11 Rush TD170 Carries4.1 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

Attempts

10.8y

Avg depth

7.0y

After catch

69%

Catch rate

The ball travels 10.8 yards in the air on an average throw — 3.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 7.0 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

100% · 84y

—

0% · 0y

short

83% · 64y

50% · 40y

67% · 117y

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

Efficiency30
Volume100
Dual-Threat59
Consistency79
Clutch66

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)30th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency79th %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.
▸3 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 — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.69 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Arizona (SP+ 12).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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.

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Jordan Travis	Florida State	2021	690	0.476	10.1	328.3

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

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	vsStephen F. Austin	W27-0	—	15/24	159	3	0	74.7	39	0	0.34
2	@Rice	W35-9	-14.8	15/22	188	1	0	56.7	23	1	0.33
3	vsColorado	W36-20	-8.3	15/24	222	0	0	75.7	83	2	0.41
5	@Oregon State	W27-24	-15.9	20/36	270	2	1	39.7	-1	1	0.15
6	vsTexas Tech	L11-35	27.6	5/12	71	0	1	27.0	7	0	0.03
7	@Oklahoma State	W39-17	-15.1	21/30	306	2	0	72.2	-3	1	0.44
8	vsArizona	W31-28	12.0	15/23	164	3	0	94.5	98	1	0.69
9	@Arizona State	W24-16	3.9	17/22	201	1	0	86.5	111	2	0.35
10	vsWest Virginia	L35-45	-6.8	25/35	309	4	2	44.0	-27	1	0.16
11	@UCF	W30-27	-1.2	20/31	223	2	3	46.4	82	0	-0.03
13	vsTCU	L14-17	8.3	15/29	161	2	1	46.3	114	0	0.15
14	@Baylor	W31-24	1.4	21/31	201	1	1	75.9	121	2	0.27
20	vsLSU	W38-35	10.3	28/37	230	4	0	92.8	56	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

55.5%

Passing plays

94.5%

Rushing plays

28.2%

Standard downs

50.8%

Passing downs

66.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.25
Passing downs: 0.38
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.35 / 0.20

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 · 2025 · 13 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.