#11Kordell David

WR·New Mexico State·2024

Kordell David is a Slot Specialist WR for New Mexico State.

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 Kordell David'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

18 Receptions191 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume7
Explosiveness24
Consistency72
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 consistency72th %ile · average

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.
▸5 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 — 0.11 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.96 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs New Mexico (SP+ -15).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Long	EPA/play
1	vsSoutheast Missouri State	W23-16	—	3	13	4.3	13	0.43
2	vsLiberty	L24-30	0.2	1	18	18.0	18	0.65
3	@Fresno State	L0-48	-3.8	1	5	5.0	5	0.11
4	@Sam Houston	L11-31	-6.9	1	3	3.0	3	—
5	vsNew Mexico	L40-50	-14.8	3	33	11.0	14	1.96
7	@Jacksonville State	L13-54	-1.0	2	18	9.0	12	0.15
8	vsLouisiana Tech	W33-30	-11.6	3	27	9.0	16	-0.05
10	vsFlorida International	L13-34	-12.1	1	7	7.0	7	0.36
13	@Middle Tennessee	W36-21	-24.4	1	38	38.0	38	1.46
14	vsUTEP	L35-42	-22.7	2	29	14.5	17	1.46

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

2.5%

Passing plays

5.7%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

1.5%

Passing downs

4.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.29
Passing downs: 1.38
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.96 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).