Skip to content
Jeremiah McClellan
Jeremiah McClellan

#3Jeremiah McClellan

Jeremiah McClellan is a Slot Specialist WR for Oregon. Jeremiah's 2025 season produced 23.1 total EPA across 40 plays.

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 Jeremiah McClellan'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
38 Receptions557 Rec yards3 Rec TD14.7 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns15 KR yards0 KR TD1 Punt returns15 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.

12
Targets
12.9y
Avg depth
11.4y
After catch
58%
Catch rate

The ball travels 12.9 yards in the air on an average target 4.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 11.4 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
2
50% · 20y
1
100% · 50y
short
4
75% · 68y
2
50% · 23y
2
50% · 9y
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
  • Volume14
  • Explosiveness51
  • Consistency76
  • 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 consistency76th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 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 — 0.61 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.51 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Rutgers (SP+ 1).

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
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

+2.5102.51Wk 1 vs Montana State: +1.00 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma State: +0.88 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Northwestern: +0.14 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Oregon State: +0.82 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Indiana: +1.28 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Rutgers: +2.51 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Wisconsin: +0.88 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Iowa: -0.23 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Minnesota: +0.29 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs USC: +0.74 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Washington: +1.04 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMontana StateW59-1311313.00131.00
2vsOklahoma StateW69-3-15.127638.00510.88
3@NorthwesternW34-145.8294.5090.14
4vsOregon StateW41-7-15.93144.71130.82
7vsIndianaL20-3032.411313.00131.28
8@RutgersW56-101.025125.50352.51
9vsWisconsinW21-7-4.434013.30200.88
11@IowaW18-1619.72147.008-0.23
12vsMinnesotaW42-131.533612.01150.29
13vsUSCW42-2716.935317.70230.74
14@WashingtonW26-1418.437826.00411.04
20vsIndianaL22-5632.456412.8043
20vsTexas TechW23-027.62136.5011
20vsJames MadisonW51-3412.368313.8122

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.0%
Passing plays
11.0%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.2%
Passing downs
7.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.41
Passing downs
0.93
Pass / Rush EPA
0.58 / —

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.