Scores
Dev
← Player leaders
Dillon Gabriel

#8Dillon Gabriel

Line value
11.6 pts
NFL Draft Outlook1st Round· model estimate based on position rank

Dillon Gabriel is a 4-year Dual-Threat QB for Oregon. Dillon's 2024 season ranks in the 88th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 480 plays — a above-average rate for the QB. Dillon's production has improved each season, a positive development trajectory.

2024 Production

Passing
326/447 Comp/Att3857 Pass yards30 Pass TD6 INT72.9% Comp %
Rushing
149 Rush yards7 Rush TD75 Carries2.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs QB peers

Gridpex AnalysisAI-generated · updated periodically

Oregon's offensive line in 2024 was a legitimately historic unit by protection metrics, and any honest assessment of Dillon Gabriel's Heisman season has to begin there. Gabriel's average time to throw was among the shortest nationally, not because he processed quickly but because the pocket consistently gave him a clean platform — the Ducks' line allowed pressure at one of the lowest rates in the country, and their run game kept defenses from loading nickel looks that flatten completion percentages. Gabriel's EPA/play numbers were excellent, but the context adjustment matters: quarterbacks operating behind elite protection on a team that won the Big Ten and played in the College Football Playoff are playing a structurally easier version of the position than quarterbacks on teams asking them to compensate for scheme or personnel weaknesses.

The turnover-worthy play rate tells an underappreciated story. Gabriel's actual interception total was low, but film charted multiple downfield attempts against Iowa and Michigan that should have been picked — throws into tight coverage on deep crossers where defensive backs simply dropped catchable balls. The gap between his turnover-worthy rate and his actual turnover total was among the wider ones at the position in 2024, which is the kind of metric that reads as luck-sustained performance in walk-forward models. Against Penn State in the Big Ten Championship, where he faced a secondary with three future first-day picks, Gabriel's completion rate on throws beyond 15 air yards dropped substantially and the Ducks' offense leaned heavily on their run game to close out the victory. That is a real limitation disguised by the narrative arc of a 13-win season.

The deep ball accuracy question is not a small concern. Gabriel's adjusted completion percentage on throws 20-plus yards downfield was below the national average for Power Four starters, and the targets he did attempt at depth skewed toward high-leverage situations where his receivers' YAC ability bailed out placement that was directionally correct but not precisely located. Oregon's route tree was intelligently designed to limit his exposure on deep drop-back attempts — they ran a high share of quick-game and intermediate concepts that suited his processing speed and pocket management strengths. Dan Lanning's offense made Gabriel look better than his physical tools alone justified, which is credit to the scheme but a genuine flag for projections.

What Gabriel does exceptionally well — pocket presence, pre-snap recognition, manipulating second-level defenders with eyes — translates across any system, and his 5-star accuracy on short-to-intermediate routes was reproducible regardless of protection. The honest outlook is that he is a very good college quarterback whose 2024 numbers reflect both genuine ability and a structural advantage that will not exist at the next level. The Heisman was earned in the sense that he was the best player on the best team in college football; it was not earned in the sense that his efficiency metrics, stripped of context, would have placed him outside the top five at the position nationally.

EfficiencyVolumeDual-ThreatConsistencyClutch
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)88th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency86th %ile · above avg
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (88th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 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 — 0.08 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.87 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Oregon State (SP+ -7).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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.

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2014–2024 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamYrPlaysWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Stetson BennettGeorgia20225090.63512.4323.0
Tanner MordecaiSMU20215100.63014.0321.5
Ryan HigginsLouisiana Tech20165710.58613.7334.6
Malik CunninghamLouisville20215020.68114.7341.6
J.T. BarrettOhio State20175760.59314.1341.6

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

Wk 1 vs Idaho: +0.53 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Boise State: +0.40 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oregon State: +0.87 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs UCLA: +0.14 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Michigan State: +0.52 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Ohio State: +0.45 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Purdue: +0.60 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Illinois: +0.58 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Michigan: +0.62 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Maryland: +0.24 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Wisconsin: +0.02 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Washington: +0.68 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Penn State: +0.54 EPA/play15Wk 1 vs Ohio State: +0.27 EPA/play1
EPA per play, by weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsIdahoW24-1441/493802056.2-2300.53
2vsBoise StateW37-3410.118/212432049.8-1510.40
3@Oregon StateW49-14-6.720/242912099.36410.87
5@UCLAW34-13-1.331/412783183.42300.14
6vsMichigan StateW31-10-4.620/322572279.82210.52
7vsOhio StateW32-3131.223/343412095.93210.45
8@PurdueW35-0-16.221/252902186.7-1100.60
9vsIllinoisW38-99.618/262913195.8510.58
10@MichiganW38-1710.622/342941095.82310.62
11vsMarylandW39-18-3.923/341833066.12800.24
12@WisconsinW16-133.022/312180164.2700.02
14vsWashingtonW49-213.116/232092093.82010.68
15vsPenn StateW45-3724.622/32283401700.54
1vsOhio StateL21-4131.229/412992074.5-4300.27

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
53.0%
Passing plays
94.3%
Rushing plays
12.0%
Standard downs
45.5%
Passing downs
72.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.23
Passing downs
0.77
Pass / Rush EPA
0.45 / 0.30

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
202020232024
2019 — 2024 · 49 games
SeasonTeamLine valueWEPA/playYoY ΔTotal EPA
2019UCF
9.9
0.535260.8
2020UCF
16.9
0.618+0.08312.7
2023Oklahoma
16.1
0.732+0.11346.4
2024Oregon
11.6
0.581-0.15292.9

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.