Skip to content
Junior Vandeross
Junior Vandeross

Junior Vandeross

Junior Vandeross is a Versatile WR for Toledo. Junior's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 111 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 Junior Vandeross'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
82 Receptions1008 Rec yards11 Rec TD12.3 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns26 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume39
  • Explosiveness35
  • Consistency73
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency73th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 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 — 0.51 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.15 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Western Kentucky (SP+ 2).

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Zach AbeyNavy0.3700.825.9
Kawaan BakerSouth Alabama0.4101.425.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.1502.15Wk 1 vs Kentucky: +0.85 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Kentucky: +2.15 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Morgan State: +1.43 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Western Michigan: -0.37 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Akron: +1.18 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Bowling Green: +0.83 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Kent State: +0.42 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Washington State: -0.25 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Northern Illinois: +0.63 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Miami (OH): +0.25 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Ball State: +1.24 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Central Michigan: +0.66 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@KentuckyL16-241.878812.61220.85
2vsWestern KentuckyW45-211.6512224.41712.15
3vsMorgan StateW60-06457.52151.43
4@Western MichiganL13-14-1.4430.804-0.37
5vsAkronW45-3-13.9912213.62281.18
7@Bowling GreenL23-28-12.6610016.70390.83
8vsKent StateW45-10-19.38769.51320.42
9@Washington StateL7-283.87527.4124-0.25
11vsNorthern IllinoisW42-3-16.769716.21280.63
12@Miami (OH)W24-3-3.46447.30150.25
13vsBall StateW38-9-23.0712718.12631.24
14@Central MichiganW21-3-8.847117.80240.66
20vsLouisvilleL22-2712.47618.7019

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
13.5%
Passing plays
28.6%
Rushing plays
0.4%
Standard downs
13.3%
Passing downs
13.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
1.01
Pass / Rush EPA
0.50 / -0.34

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.