#10Tucker Kilcrease

QB·Troy·2025

Tucker Kilcrease is a Dual-Threat QB for Troy. Tucker's 2025 season ranks in the 0th 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 Tucker Kilcrease'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

130/222 Comp/Att1537 Pass yards9 Pass TD6 INT58.6% Comp %

Rushing

126 Rush yards5 Rush TD116 Carries1.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat53
Consistency0
Clutch89

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.
▸9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.25 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.56 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs UL Monroe (SP+ -22).

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 · EPA per play, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	EPA/play	Pass	Rush
1	Jacksonville State	—	-6.7	-0.19	-0.10	-0.16
1	Jacksonville State	—	-6.7	-0.19	-0.10	-0.16
1	Troy	—	-4.8	-0.19	-0.10	-0.16
2	Clemson	—	9.5	-0.78	—	-0.78
2	Clemson	—	9.5	-0.78	—	-0.78
2	Troy	—	-4.8	-0.78	—	-0.78
3	Memphis	—	7.6	-0.15	-0.20	0.09
3	Memphis	—	7.6	-0.15	-0.20	0.09
3	Troy	—	-4.8	-0.15	-0.20	0.09
4	Buffalo	—	-7.5	0.26	0.26	0.25
4	Buffalo	—	-7.5	0.26	0.26	0.25
4	Troy	—	-4.8	0.26	0.26	0.25
6	South Alabama	—	-12.7	0.47	0.74	0.23
6	South Alabama	—	-12.7	0.47	0.74	0.23
6	Troy	—	-4.8	0.47	0.74	0.23
7	Texas State	—	2.3	0.48	0.59	-0.05
7	Texas State	—	2.3	0.48	0.59	-0.05
7	Troy	—	-4.8	0.48	0.59	-0.05
8	UL Monroe	—	-21.6	0.56	0.84	-0.46
8	UL Monroe	—	-21.6	0.56	0.84	-0.46
8	Troy	—	-4.8	0.56	0.84	-0.46
9	Louisiana	—	-10.1	0.33	0.20	0.77
9	Louisiana	—	-10.1	0.33	0.20	0.77
9	Troy	—	-4.8	0.33	0.20	0.77
10	Arkansas State	—	-8.8	-0.10	-0.22	0.58
10	Arkansas State	—	-8.8	-0.10	-0.22	0.58
10	Troy	—	-4.8	-0.10	-0.22	0.58
12	Old Dominion	—	5.9	0.36	-0.09	0.59
12	Old Dominion	—	5.9	0.36	-0.09	0.59
12	Troy	—	-4.8	0.36	-0.09	0.59
15	James Madison	—	12.3	-0.20	-0.49	0.19
15	James Madison	—	12.3	-0.20	-0.49	0.19
15	Troy	—	-4.8	-0.20	-0.49	0.19

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

47.4%

Passing plays

67.3%

Rushing plays

26.7%

Standard downs

42.3%

Passing downs

56.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.08
Passing downs: 0.32
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.20 / 0.17

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