#7Miller Moss

QB·Louisville·2025

Miller Moss is a Dual-Threat QB for Louisville. Miller's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 425 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 Miller Moss'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

244/380 Comp/Att2679 Pass yards16 Pass TD7 INT64.2% Comp %

Rushing

-65 Rush yards9 Rush TD54 Carries-1.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency75
Clutch40

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 consistency75th %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.
▸Peak game: 0.71 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Kentucky (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsEastern Kentucky	W51-17	—	17/25	223	1	2	89.3	8	1	0.29
2	vsJames Madison	W28-14	12.3	13/23	151	1	0	59.0	-8	0	0.09
4	vsBowling Green	W40-17	-12.6	23/32	316	0	0	71.9	-25	0	0.44
5	@Pittsburgh	W34-27	8.4	33/51	339	3	1	73.3	-15	1	0.21
6	vsVirginia	L27-30	11.1	34/48	329	2	1	54.2	-38	1	0.17
8	@Miami	W24-21	20.7	23/37	248	2	0	71.5	-9	1	0.18
9	vsBoston College	W38-24	-8.5	15/27	187	1	1	38.0	10	2	0.07
10	@Virginia Tech	W28-16	-10.1	19/28	136	1	1	67.3	11	0	0.18
11	vsCalifornia	L26-29	-3.2	20/38	203	0	1	20.5	-7	1	-0.03
12	vsClemson	L19-20	9.5	19/27	212	0	0	58.7	-3	1	0.19
14	vsKentucky	W41-0	1.8	12/20	182	3	0	87.8	18	1	0.71
20	vsToledo	W27-22	6.0	16/24	153	2	0	77.1	-7	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

53.9%

Passing plays

96.9%

Rushing plays

8.6%

Standard downs

47.2%

Passing downs

71.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.18
Passing downs: 0.18
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.13 / 0.76

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