Skip to content
Koby Young

#2Koby Young

Koby Young is a Versatile WR for Houston.

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 Koby Young'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
12 Receptions191 Rec yards0 Rec TD15.9 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

8
Targets
21.2y
Avg depth
7.0y
After catch
50%
Catch rate

The ball travels 21.2 yards in the air on an average target 12.3 yards deeper than the median. Another 7.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 47y
0
3
33% · 43y
short
1
0% · 0y
1
100% · 4y
2
50% · 7y
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
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness59
  • Consistency66
  • 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 consistency66th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.40 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.75 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Texas Tech (SP+ 28).

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

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7501.75Wk 1 vs Stephen F. Austin: -0.51 EPA/play1Wk 6 vs Texas Tech: +1.75 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Arizona: -0.12 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Arizona State: +1.04 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs West Virginia: +0.96 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UCF: +1.11 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs TCU: +0.27 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsStephen F. AustinW27-0-0.51
5@Oregon StateW27-24-15.9
6vsTexas TechL11-3527.614343.00431.75
8vsArizonaW31-2812.0166.006-0.12
9@Arizona StateW24-163.922713.50191.04
10vsWest VirginiaL35-45-6.845614.00300.96
11@UCFW30-27-1.222713.50181.11
13vsTCUL14-178.30.27
20vsLSUW38-3510.323216.0021

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.8%
Passing plays
8.7%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
3.5%
Passing downs
4.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.26
Passing downs
0.81
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / 1.01

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.