#8Davis Warren

QB·Michigan·2024

Davis Warren is a Dual-Threat QB for Michigan. Davis's 2024 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 199 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 Davis Warren'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.

2024 Production

Passing

133/207 Comp/Att1198 Pass yards7 Pass TD9 INT64.3% Comp %

Rushing

-22 Rush yards0 Rush TD17 Carries-1.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat52
Consistency69
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)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency69th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 0.50 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Oregon (SP+ 26).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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.

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	EPA/play
1	vsFresno State	W30-10	-3.8	15/25	118	1	1	33.0	-9	-0.08
2	vsTexas	L12-31	24.1	22/33	204	1	2	47.6	3	0.19
3	vsArkansas State	W28-18	-9.9	11/14	122	0	3	21.8	6	0.17
9	vsMichigan State	W24-17	-4.6	13/19	123	1	0	83.3	7	0.33
10	vsOregon	L17-38	26.0	12/21	164	2	0	89.2	0	0.50
11	@Indiana	L15-20	20.1	16/32	137	0	0	21.6	-17	-0.02
13	vsNorthwestern	W50-6	-8.2	26/35	195	1	1	71.3	-9	0.17
14	@Ohio State	W13-10	31.2	9/16	62	0	2	35.9	11	0.07
20	vsAlabama	W19-13	25.0	9/12	73	1	0	88.8	-14	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

41.3%

Passing plays

94.7%

Rushing plays

3.2%

Standard downs

32.7%

Passing downs

58.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.20
Passing downs: 0.60
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.18 / 0.16

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