Skip to content
Mason Heintschel
Mason Heintschel

#6Mason Heintschel

Mason Heintschel is a Dual-Threat QB for Pittsburgh. Mason's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 363 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 Mason Heintschel'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
201/316 Comp/Att2357 Pass yards16 Pass TD8 INT63.6% Comp %
Rushing
88 Rush yards2 Rush TD86 Carries1.0 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

39
Attempts
10.8y
Avg depth
3.5y
After catch
74%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.8 yards in the air on an average throw 3.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 3.5 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
3
67% · 66y
1
100% · 22y
2
100% · 80y
short
12
75% · 73y
12
75% · 115y
9
67% · 47y
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

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat60
  • Consistency72
  • Clutch86
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)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency72th %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.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 4 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 — 0.43 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.61 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Florida State (SP+ 7).

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

+0.6100.61Wk 2 vs Central Michigan: +0.49 EPA/play2Wk 6 vs Boston College: +0.60 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Florida State: +0.61 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Syracuse: +0.17 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs NC State: +0.51 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Stanford: +0.06 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Notre Dame: -0.22 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Georgia Tech: +0.25 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Miami: +0.09 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
2vsCentral MichiganW45-17-8.83/4360083.40.49
6vsBoston CollegeW48-7-8.530/413234087.92800.60
7@Florida StateW34-317.221/293212272.86400.61
8@SyracuseW30-13-13.113/241430139.92310.17
9vsNC StateW53-344.828/484233083.8700.51
10@StanfordW35-20-11.823/383043268.82100.06
12vsNotre DameL15-3724.416/33126018.770-0.22
13@Georgia TechW42-289.320/272262077.8-2910.25
14vsMiamiL7-3820.722/321991129.0-2400.09
20vsEast CarolinaL17-238.025/402561142.8-90

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
56.4%
Passing plays
89.2%
Rushing plays
17.7%
Standard downs
47.9%
Passing downs
73.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.17
Passing downs
0.40
Pass / Rush EPA
0.32 / 0.20

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.