Skip to content
Lawson Luckie

#7Lawson Luckie

Lawson Luckie is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Georgia.

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 Lawson Luckie'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 Receptions158 Rec yards4 Rec TD10.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness24
  • Consistency67
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency67th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — 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 0.73 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.53 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Texas (SP+ 16).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.5302.53Wk 1 vs Marshall: +1.10 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Tennessee: -0.15 EPA/play3Wk 7 vs Auburn: -0.39 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ole Miss: +1.68 EPA/play8Wk 12 vs Texas: +2.53 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Charlotte: +1.02 EPA/play13Wk 15 vs Alabama: +0.32 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMarshallW45-7-4.5166.0061.10
3@TennesseeW44-4115.03258.3016-0.15
7@AuburnW20-1011.6177.007-0.39
8vsOle MissW43-3524.05438.63131.68
12vsTexasW35-1016.2166.0162.53
13vsCharlotteW35-3-26.723316.50291.02
15vsAlabamaW28-714.811818.00180.32
20vsOle MissL34-3924.012020.0016

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.1%
Passing plays
6.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
3.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
0.98
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / —

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.