#9Desmond Ridder

QB·Cincinnati·2021 20206.5 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Desmond Ridder is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Cincinnati. Desmond's 2021 season ranks in the 25th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 474 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 Desmond Ridder'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.

2021 Production

Passing

251/387 Comp/Att3334 Pass yards30 Pass TD8 INT64.9% Comp %

Rushing

355 Rush yards6 Rush TD110 Carries3.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs QB peers

Efficiency25
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency78
Clutch8

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)25th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency78th %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.
▸7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Peak game: 0.81 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs SMU (SP+ 9).

NIL Market Tier· 2021

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	vsMiami (OH)	W49-14	1.5	20/25	295	4	1	96.9	31	1	0.80
2	vsMurray State	W42-7	—	14/22	243	2	0	43.5	-4	0	0.56
3	@Indiana	W38-24	-7.8	20/36	210	1	1	62.6	45	1	0.13
5	@Notre Dame	W24-13	17.4	19/32	297	2	0	81.3	26	1	0.53
6	vsTemple	W52-3	-19.1	22/30	259	3	0	69.3	6	0	0.48
7	vsUCF	W56-21	4.8	13/23	140	1	0	80.4	14	0	0.11
8	@Navy	W27-20	-8.5	18/30	176	2	1	52.9	6	0	0.18
9	@Tulane	W31-12	-3.9	17/27	227	3	1	65.6	47	0	0.28
10	vsTulsa	W28-20	5.8	15/23	274	2	1	82.7	43	1	0.49
11	@South Florida	W45-28	-12.1	31/39	304	2	1	70.6	65	1	0.34
12	vsSMU	W48-14	8.9	17/23	274	3	0	99.3	46	1	0.81
13	@East Carolina	W35-13	0.5	17/28	301	2	2	65.0	17	0	0.22
14	vsHouston	W35-20	10.9	11/17	190	3	0	89.7	19	0	0.48
1	vsAlabama	L6-27	26.0	17/32	144	0	0	28.3	-6	0	-0.21

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

57.7%

Passing plays

96.9%

Rushing plays

20.1%

Standard downs

51.7%

Passing downs

74.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.41
Passing downs: 0.25
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.34 / 0.40

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 · 2020 — 2021 · 24 games

Season	Team	Line value	WEPA/play	YoY Δ	Total EPA
2020	Cincinnati	8.9	0.515	—	196.8
2021	Cincinnati	6.5	0.481	-0.03	243.8

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.