Skip to content
Isaiah Sategna

Isaiah Sategna

Isaiah Sategna is a Versatile WR for Oklahoma. Isaiah's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 100 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 Isaiah Sategna'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
65 Receptions949 Rec yards8 Rec TD14.6 Yards/rec
Returns
20 Punt returns255 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

15
Targets
10.4y
Avg depth
9.7y
After catch
40%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.4 yards in the air on an average target 1.5 yards deeper than the median. Another 9.7 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
2
50% · 34y
1
0% · 0y
short
5
40% · 9y
2
0% · 0y
4
75% · 42y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume33
  • Explosiveness51
  • Consistency72
  • Pass-Down93
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 consistency72th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 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 0.09 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.98 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Kent State (SP+ -19).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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.

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.9801.98Wk 2 vs Michigan: +0.10 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Temple: +0.32 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Auburn: +0.63 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Kent State: +1.98 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas: +0.33 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs South Carolina: +0.40 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ole Miss: +1.79 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Tennessee: +0.79 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Alabama: +0.65 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Missouri: +0.08 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs LSU: +0.27 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsMichiganW24-1312.444411.00360.10
3@TempleW42-3-5.179713.90280.32
4vsAuburnW24-1711.6912714.11310.63
6vsKent StateW44-0-19.347518.82301.98
7vsTexasL6-2316.246115.30230.33
8@South CarolinaW26-75.977310.41200.40
9vsOle MissL26-3424.0613121.81761.79
10@TennesseeW33-2715.066811.30250.79
12@AlabamaW23-2114.84266.50210.65
13vsMissouriW17-614.4310936.31870.08
14vsLSUW17-1310.3912113.41580.27
20vsAlabamaL24-3414.82178.5110

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
11.6%
Passing plays
21.3%
Rushing plays
1.2%
Standard downs
9.7%
Passing downs
15.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.39
Passing downs
0.65
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / -0.27

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.