Skip to content
Hunter Summers

#3Hunter Summers

Hunter Summers is a Versatile WR for Arkansas State. Hunter's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · 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)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

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

Receiving
44 Receptions505 Rec yards4 Rec TD11.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume23
  • Explosiveness30
  • Consistency55
  • Pass-Down68
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency55th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.48 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Troy (SP+ -5).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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 · WR · 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
Malik DunnerBall State0.2900.422.0
Noah ShortArmy0.3000.520.7
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5
Xavier WhiteTexas Tech0.3000.518.6
Chris TyreeNotre Dame0.3100.623.6

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4801.48Wk 1 vs Southeast Missouri State: +1.23 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Arkansas: +0.74 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Iowa State: +0.38 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Kennesaw State: +0.61 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs UL Monroe: -0.38 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Texas State: +0.26 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs South Alabama: -0.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Georgia Southern: +0.46 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Troy: +1.48 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Southern Miss: +0.39 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Louisiana: -0.45 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs App State: -0.02 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsSoutheast Missouri StateW42-2425427.00391.23
2vsArkansasL14-565.1155.0050.74
3vsIowa StateL16-249.933712.30160.38
4@Kennesaw StateL21-28-5.4811414.31430.61
5@UL MonroeL16-28-21.6155.005-0.38
6vsTexas StateW31-302.35285.6190.26
8@South AlabamaW15-14-12.74215.316-0.18
9vsGeorgia SouthernW34-24-9.433612.00160.46
10@TroyW23-10-4.847017.51211.48
11vsSouthern MissL21-27-7.14338.30120.39
13vsLouisianaL30-34-10.15438.6011-0.45
14@App StateW30-29-11.43206.7010-0.02
20vsMissouri StateW34-28-10.713939.0039

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.1%
Passing plays
14.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
7.0%
Passing downs
10.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.34
Pass / Rush EPA
0.28 / —

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.