Skip to content
Drew Pyne

#9Drew Pyne

Drew Pyne is a Dual-Threat QB for Bowling Green.

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 Drew Pyne'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
94/151 Comp/Att882 Pass yards4 Pass TD5 INT62.3% Comp %
Rushing
-14 Rush yards0 Rush TD30 Carries-0.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency0
  • 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 consistency0th %ile · below 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 variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.42 EPA/play decline from first to second half.

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

+0.3400.34Wk 1 vs Lafayette: +0.14 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Cincinnati: +0.31 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Liberty: +0.16 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Louisville: -0.04 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Ohio: -0.34 EPA/play5Wk 10 vs Buffalo: -0.27 EPA/play10
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsLafayetteW26-712/1810900-1.0-300.14
2@CincinnatiL20-344.529/362741071.0-1300.31
3vsLibertyW23-13-9.016/311461045.22500.16
4@LouisvilleL17-4012.411/211311235.6170-0.04
5@OhioL20-35-4.019/291701310.8-100-0.34
10vsBuffaloL3-28-7.57/1652006.0-300-0.27

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
46.6%
Passing plays
92.7%
Rushing plays
6.9%
Standard downs
37.3%
Passing downs
64.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.20
Passing downs
0.24
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.05 / 0.73

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

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.