Skip to content
Anthony Woods

#6Anthony Woods

RB·UCLA·2025

Anthony Woods is a Pass-Catching Back for UCLA. Anthony's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Anthony Woods'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

Rushing
294 Rush yards0 Rush TD63 Carries4.7 Yards/carry
Receiving
24 Receptions211 Rec yards2 Rec TD8.8 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns36 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency3
  • Volume36
  • Explosiveness34
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving100
Player type
Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)3th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.91 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Nebraska (SP+ 6).

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

+1.0701.07Wk 1 vs Utah: +0.76 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UNLV: +0.01 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico: +0.15 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Northwestern: -0.26 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Penn State: -0.12 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Michigan State: +0.33 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Maryland: -1.07 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Nebraska: +0.91 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ohio State: -0.03 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Washington: -0.05 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs USC: +0.26 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsUtahL10-4322.23134.3034810.76
2@UNLVL23-304.38405.0021500.01
3vsNew MexicoL10-350.910646.4052800.15
5@NorthwesternL14-175.84102.503120-0.26
6vsPenn StateW42-3718.114634.50100-0.12
7@Michigan StateW38-13-3.44328.0011400.33
8vsMarylandW20-170.61-1-1.00-1.07
11vsNebraskaL21-286.24112.8024910.91
12@Ohio StateL10-4830.15204.00-0.03
13vsWashingtonL14-4818.45142.802180-0.05
14@USCL10-2916.95285.6052700.26

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.5%
Passing plays
7.4%
Rushing plays
18.4%
Standard downs
12.5%
Passing downs
12.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.01
Passing downs
0.44
Pass / Rush EPA
0.47 / -0.01

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.
Anthony Woods Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Ucla · Gridpex