Skip to content
Reece Vander Zee
Reece Vander Zee

#2Reece Vander Zee

WR·Iowa·2025

Reece Vander Zee is a Slot Specialist WR for Iowa.

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 Reece Vander Zee'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 Receptions219 Rec yards2 Rec TD14.6 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns0 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume13
  • Explosiveness51
  • Consistency73
  • Pass-Down0
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 consistency73th %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.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.82 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.74 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Minnesota (SP+ 2).

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.740−2.74Wk 7 vs Wisconsin: +0.52 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Penn State: +0.23 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Minnesota: +2.74 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Oregon: +2.61 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs USC: +0.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan State: +0.42 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Nebraska: +1.54 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
7@WisconsinW37-0-4.43299.70130.52
8vsPenn StateW25-2418.111010.00100.23
9vsMinnesotaW41-31.512929.01292.74
11vsOregonL16-1825.911515.00152.61
12@USCL21-2616.9144.0040.15
13vsMichigan StateW20-17-3.424623.00290.42
14@NebraskaW40-166.225326.50271.54
20vsVanderbiltW34-2720.34338.3113—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.6%
Passing plays
13.3%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.8%
Passing downs
6.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.14
Passing downs
0.48
Pass / Rush EPA
0.88 / —

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.