Skip to content
Landen King

#0Landen King

TE·Duke·2025

Landen King is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Duke.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Landen King'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
15 Receptions203 Rec yards4 Rec TD13.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness44
  • Consistency81
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency81th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.42 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.79 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs UConn (SP+ 5).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.7902.79Wk 1 vs Elon: +1.56 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Illinois: -0.24 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Tulane: +2.63 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs NC State: +2.58 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs California: +2.17 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Georgia Tech: +0.96 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Clemson: +0.39 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UConn: +2.79 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Virginia: +1.16 EPA/play12Wk 15 vs Virginia: +1.29 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsElonW45-1711919.00191.56
2vsIllinoisL19-4512.9133.003-0.24
3@TulaneL27-346.3133.0132.63
4vsNC StateW45-334.811717.01172.58
6@CaliforniaW45-21-3.213333.00332.17
8vsGeorgia TechL18-279.333411.31200.96
10@ClemsonW46-459.522412.00160.39
11@UConnL34-375.1111.0112.79
12vsVirginiaL17-3411.124824.00321.16
15vsVirginiaW27-2011.122110.50161.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.6%
Passing plays
4.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.5%
Passing downs
0.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.17
Passing downs
0.73
Pass / Rush EPA
1.15 / —

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.