Skip to content
Kaleb Webb

#2Kaleb Webb

Kaleb Webb is a Slot Specialist WR for Maryland. Kaleb's 2025 season produced 14.6 total EPA across 34 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 Kaleb Webb'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
22 Receptions318 Rec yards2 Rec TD14.5 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

11
Targets
13.5y
Avg depth
4.8y
After catch
55%
Catch rate

The ball travels 13.5 yards in the air on an average target 4.6 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.8 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
3
0% · 0y
1
100% · 30y
short
3
100% · 21y
2
50% · 9y
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
  • Volume13
  • Explosiveness50
  • Consistency61
  • 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 consistency61th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 6 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 — 0.87 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.79 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Northern Illinois (SP+ -17).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.7902.79Wk 1 vs Florida Atlantic: +1.00 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Northern Illinois: +2.79 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Towson: +0.29 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wisconsin: +0.54 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Nebraska: +1.03 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UCLA: +0.35 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Indiana: +1.49 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Rutgers: -0.50 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Illinois: -0.14 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan: +0.02 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Michigan State: +0.42 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsFlorida AtlanticW39-7-8.723919.51291.00
2vsNorthern IllinoisW20-9-16.711919.00192.79
3vsTowsonW44-17199.0090.29
4@WisconsinW27-10-4.411818.00180.54
7vsNebraskaL31-346.222512.50251.03
8@UCLAL17-20-8.711010.00100.35
10vsIndianaL10-5532.424020.00251.49
11@RutgersL20-351.012121.0121-0.50
12@IllinoisL6-2412.934816.0017-0.14
13vsMichiganL20-4512.411212.00120.02
14vsMichigan StateL28-38-3.477711.00180.42

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.6%
Passing plays
7.5%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.8%
Passing downs
6.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.25
Passing downs
1.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / —

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.