#12Evan Simon

QB·Temple·2025

Evan Simon is a Volume Passer for Temple. Evan's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 340 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 Evan Simon'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

190/314 Comp/Att2098 Pass yards25 Pass TD2 INT60.5% Comp %

Rushing

191 Rush yards2 Rush TD75 Carries2.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency3
Volume100
Dual-Threat31
Consistency62
Clutch50

Player type

Volume Passer

High-rep offense that leans on this QB's arm — value comes through cumulative production across a high number of plays.

High play countFranchise-volume role

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)3th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency62th %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.
▸5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.97 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -37).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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	@Massachusetts	W42-10	-36.6	19/25	248	6	0	95.8	21	0	0.97
2	vsHoward	W55-7	—	8/10	174	3	0	92.1	34	0	0.83
3	vsOklahoma	L3-42	18.3	13/25	75	0	0	17.6	-10	0	-0.08
4	@Georgia Tech	L24-45	9.3	13/32	127	1	0	37.9	68	0	-0.08
6	vsUTSA	W27-21	3.7	16/25	181	2	0	70.9	23	0	0.48
7	vsNavy	L31-32	6.2	25/36	345	1	0	80.2	20	1	0.59
8	@Charlotte	W49-14	-26.7	15/22	194	3	0	76.9	16	1	0.57
9	@Tulsa	W38-37	-10.0	24/35	267	5	0	72.0	17	0	0.31
10	vsEast Carolina	L14-45	8.0	11/20	80	0	1	29.0	-9	0	-0.04
11	@Army	L13-14	0.8	15/25	157	1	0	72.4	18	0	0.22
13	vsTulane	L13-37	6.3	21/32	168	2	0	49.1	-15	0	0.09
14	@North Texas	L25-52	13.8	10/27	82	1	1	22.8	8	0	-0.26

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

50.6%

Passing plays

89.7%

Rushing plays

15.3%

Standard downs

43.7%

Passing downs

66.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.25
Passing downs: 0.30
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.31 / 0.05

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