Skip to content
Jasaiah Gathings
Jasaiah Gathings

#8Jasaiah Gathings

Jasaiah Gathings is a Slot Specialist WR for Buffalo.

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 Jasaiah Gathings'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
36 Receptions410 Rec yards3 Rec TD11.4 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

7
Targets
9.4y
Avg depth
0.5y
After catch
29%
Catch rate

The ball travels 9.4 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 0.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
6
33% · 14y
0
1
0% · 0y
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

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume29
  • Explosiveness29
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down96
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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR 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 — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.82 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Troy (SP+ -5).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Shai WertsGeorgia Southern0.1500.024.2
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8201.82Wk 1 vs Minnesota: -0.19 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs St. Francis (PA): -0.38 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kent State: -0.39 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Troy: +1.82 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Eastern Michigan: -0.09 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Massachusetts: +0.32 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Akron: +0.08 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Bowling Green: -0.38 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Central Michigan: -0.02 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Miami (OH): -0.11 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ohio: +0.33 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@MinnesotaL10-231.53217.009-0.19
2vsSt. Francis (PA)W45-6294.506-0.38
3@Kent StateW31-28-19.34307.5013-0.39
4vsTroyL17-21-4.824723.50391.82
6vsEastern MichiganW31-30-14.724321.5027-0.09
8@MassachusettsW28-21-36.668414.00200.32
9vsAkronL16-24-13.94307.50100.08
10@Bowling GreenW28-3-12.62105.015-0.38
12@Central MichiganL19-38-8.868514.2032-0.02
13vsMiami (OH)L20-37-3.43217.0110-0.11
14vsOhioL26-31-4.023015.01290.33

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.3%
Passing plays
19.5%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
8.4%
Passing downs
14.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.11
Passing downs
0.17
Pass / Rush EPA
0.06 / -3.56

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.