Skip to content
Jackson Williams
Jackson Williams

#18Jackson Williams

Jackson Williams is a Slot Specialist WR for North Dakota State.

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 Jackson Williams'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
17 Receptions293 Rec yards1 Rec TD17.2 Yards/rec
Returns
14 Kick returns449 KR yards1 KR TD25 Punt returns348 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.

10
Targets
6.3y
Avg depth
4.0y
After catch
90%
Catch rate

The ball travels 6.3 yards in the air on an average target 2.7 yards shorter than the median. Another 4.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
100% · 20y
short
4
75% · 31y
0
5
100% · 45y
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
  • Volume10
  • Explosiveness68
  • Consistency60
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency60th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 7 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 — 0.97 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.71 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs St. Thomas (MN).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.7102.71Wk 1 vs The Citadel: +0.86 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Southeast Missouri State: +0.29 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs South Dakota: +2.65 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Illinois State: +2.65 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Southern Illinois: +1.09 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Indiana State: -0.12 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs South Dakota State: +1.22 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Youngstown State: -0.62 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs North Dakota: +0.45 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Northern Iowa: -0.75 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs St. Thomas (MN): +2.71 EPA/play13Wk 15 vs Illinois State: +0.25 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@The CitadelW38-011212.00120.86
2@Tennessee StateW59-3
3vsSoutheast Missouri StateW41-1411616.00160.29
5vsSouth DakotaW51-1313535.00352.65
6@Illinois StateW33-1637123.70512.65
7vsSouthern IllinoisW45-1711010.00101.09
8@Indiana StateW38-711212.0012-0.12
9@South Dakota StateW38-734113.70161.22
10vsYoungstown StateW38-30-0.62
11@North DakotaW15-102178.5090.45
12vsNorthern IowaW48-16-0.75
13vsSt. Thomas (MN)W62-737023.31432.71
15vsIllinois StateL28-29199.0090.25

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.6%
Passing plays
8.7%
Rushing plays
0.9%
Standard downs
1.8%
Passing downs
8.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.25
Passing downs
1.43
Pass / Rush EPA
1.21 / -0.55

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.