Skip to content
Kevin Coleman Jr.
Kevin Coleman Jr.

#3Kevin Coleman Jr.

Kevin Coleman Jr. is a Versatile WR for Mississippi State. Kevin's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 76 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 Kevin Coleman Jr.'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.

2024 Production

Receiving
69 Receptions844 Rec yards5 Rec TD12.2 Yards/rec
Returns
11 Punt returns36 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume31
  • Explosiveness35
  • Consistency84
  • 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 consistency84th %ile · above avg
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 — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.54 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Arizona State (SP+ 9).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.5401.54Wk 2 vs Arizona State: +1.54 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Toledo: +1.06 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida: -0.04 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Texas: +1.32 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Georgia: +0.70 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Texas A&M: +0.89 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Arkansas: +1.24 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Massachusetts: +0.48 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Tennessee: +0.85 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Missouri: +0.78 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ole Miss: +0.39 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2@Arizona StateL23-309.4410325.81801.54
3vsToledoL17-41-2.577711.01301.06
4vsFloridaL28-4513.86193.2013-0.04
5@TexasL13-3524.16579.50201.32
7@GeorgiaL31-4124.3810312.90420.70
8vsTexas A&ML24-3417.088911.11380.89
9vsArkansasL25-5811.0810012.51311.24
10vsMassachusettsW45-20-21.955210.40260.48
11@TennesseeL14-3322.056813.60230.85
13vsMissouriL20-3914.06589.70170.78
14@Ole MissL14-2627.9611819.71440.39

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
11.0%
Passing plays
20.4%
Rushing plays
1.2%
Standard downs
10.4%
Passing downs
12.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.54
Passing downs
1.19
Pass / Rush EPA
0.84 / -0.20

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.