Scores
Dev
← Player leaders
Ta'Quan Roberson

#2Ta'Quan Roberson

Ta'Quan Roberson is a Dual-Threat QB for Buffalo. Ta'Quan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 391 plays — a developing rate for the QB.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

45%
projected
band 27%'25 53%63%

Regressed toward the QB mean. Model correlation r≈0.46 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

2025 Production

Passing
206/356 Comp/Att2520 Pass yards17 Pass TD12 INT57.9% Comp %
Rushing
125 Rush yards3 Rush TD83 Carries1.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

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)0th %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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.20 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.44 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Ohio (SP+ -4).

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

Wk 1 vs Minnesota: +0.13 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs St. Francis (PA): +0.28 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kent State: +0.36 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Troy: +0.25 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.39 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Massachusetts: +0.24 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Bowling Green: -0.01 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Central Michigan: -0.19 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Miami (OH): +0.10 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ohio: +0.44 EPA/play14
EPA per play, by weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@MinnesotaL10-231.512/201071037.9700.13
2vsSt. Francis (PA)W45-610/201331173.08820.28
3@Kent StateW31-28-19.328/403183166.76300.36
4vsTroyL17-21-4.89/151040032.7700.25
6vsEastern MichiganW31-30-14.719/382723036.6100.39
8@MassachusettsW28-21-36.636/554032155.7-500.24
9vsAkronL16-24-13.923/362661416.5-30
10@Bowling GreenW28-3-12.613/241361144.910-0.01
12@Central MichiganL19-38-8.816/332081116.0-130-0.19
13vsMiami (OH)L20-37-3.424/483032234.2-2500.10
14vsOhioL26-31-4.016/272702147.1410.44

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
53.1%
Passing plays
89.7%
Rushing plays
15.4%
Standard downs
47.3%
Passing downs
64.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.08
Passing downs
0.37
Pass / Rush EPA
0.20 / 0.26

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.