Skip to content
Trevor Lawrence
Trevor Lawrence

#16Trevor Lawrence

QB·Clemson·2020201920189.9 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Trevor Lawrence is a 3-year Dual-Threat QB for Clemson. Trevor's 2018 season ranks in the 83th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 406 plays — a above-average rate for the QB. Production has trended downward season-over-season on adjusted value metrics.

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 Trevor Lawrence'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.

Recruiting Profile· Class of 2018

★★★★★
5-Star · Blue chip
Stars
★★★★★
247 composite
0.9999
National rank
#1
High school
Cartersville
Hometown
Cartersville, GA

Recruiting data from CFBD/247Sports composite. Sourced from the player's signing-class team — transfers show original school's class.

2018 Production

Passing
259/398 Comp/Att3280 Pass yards30 Pass TD4 INT65.1% Comp %
Rushing
177 Rush yards1 Rush TD60 Carries3.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2018 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency83
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat55
  • Consistency81
  • 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)83th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency81th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:↓ Declining
Key findings
  • ▸Above-average efficiency for the QB position (83th percentile).
  • ▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • ▸Production has slipped season-over-season on adjusted value metrics.
  • ▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • ▸5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Peak game: 0.81 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Georgia Tech (SP+ 0).

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Ryan HigginsLouisiana Tech0.58613.7334.6

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.810−0.81Wk 1 vs Furman: +0.38 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Texas A&M: +0.25 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia Southern: +0.62 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Georgia Tech: +0.81 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Syracuse: -0.14 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Wake Forest: +0.21 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs NC State: +0.40 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Florida State: +0.42 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Louisville: +0.36 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Boston College: +0.23 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Duke: +0.36 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs South Carolina: +0.54 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Pittsburgh: +0.00 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs Notre Dame: +0.38 EPA/play1Wk 1 vs Alabama: +0.38 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsFurmanW48-7—9/141373065.5100.38
2@Texas A&MW28-2621.65/99310—-100.25
3vsGeorgia SouthernW38-7-2.412/1919411—1300.62
4@Georgia TechW49-210.313/1817641—1100.81
5vsSyracuseW27-237.510/159300—-90-0.14
6@Wake ForestW63-33.620/2517520—500.21
8vsNC StateW41-79.426/3930810—1200.40
9@Florida StateW59-101.420/3731440—600.42
10vsLouisvilleW77-16-9.18/125921—1100.36
11@Boston CollegeW27-72.429/4029511—910.23
12vsDukeW35-65.021/3825120—2600.36
13vsSouth CarolinaW56-3514.927/3639310—4200.54
14vsPittsburghW42-102.712/2411820—1800.00
1vsNotre DameW30-320.727/4032730—600.38
1vsAlabamaW44-1636.320/3234730—2700.38

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
43.3%
Passing plays
80.8%
Rushing plays
8.9%
Standard downs
37.3%
Passing downs
58.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.25
Passing downs
0.68
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / 0.17

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.780−0.3220192020
EPA per play · 2018 — 2020 · 39 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2018Clemson
9.9
260.4
2019Clemson
11.7
318.9
2020Clemson
9.6
233.9

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.

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