Skip to content
Patrick Clacks III
Patrick Clacks III

#3Patrick Clacks III

Patrick Clacks III is a Versatile WR for Buffalo.

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 Patrick Clacks III'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 Receptions71 Rec yards2 Rec TD5.9 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns48 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency0
  • 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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.41 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.94 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Akron (SP+ -14).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.2200.815.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9400.94Wk 4 vs Troy: -0.57 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs UConn: -0.39 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.02 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Massachusetts: -0.39 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Akron: +0.94 EPA/play9Wk 13 vs Miami (OH): -0.25 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
4vsTroyL17-21-4.8-0.57
5vsUConnL17-205.15367.2010-0.39
6vsEastern MichiganW31-30-14.73155.0170.02
8@MassachusettsW28-21-36.62157.5011-0.39
9vsAkronL16-24-13.9111.0110.94
13vsMiami (OH)L20-37-3.4144.004-0.25

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.1%
Passing plays
10.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.9%
Passing downs
8.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.43
Passing downs
0.01
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.22 / —

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.