Skip to content
Samari Howard

#27Samari Howard

WR·Army·2025

Samari Howard is a Versatile WR for Army.

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 Samari Howard'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

Rushing
41 Rush yards0 Rush TD13 Carries3.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
11 Receptions133 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.1 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

7
Targets
11.4y
Avg depth
4.6y
After catch
71%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.4 yards in the air on an average target 2.5 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.6 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 33y
1
0% · 0y
0
short
3
67% · 10y
2
100% · 19y
0
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness34
  • Consistency69
  • 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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 6 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 — 0.69 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.72 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs UAB (SP+ -16).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Nick NashSan José State0.3100.514.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7201.72Wk 2 vs Kansas State: +0.17 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs North Texas: +1.23 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs East Carolina: +0.91 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UAB: +1.72 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Tulane: +0.75 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Temple: -0.46 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Tulsa: +1.41 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UTSA: +0.57 EPA/play14Wk 16 vs Navy: -0.26 EPA/play16
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2@Kansas StateW24-217.03165.3080.17
4vsNorth TexasL38-4513.822110.51171.23
5@East CarolinaL6-288.022613.00130.91
6@UABW31-13-15.824824.00411.72
8@TulaneL17-246.3188.0080.75
11vsTempleW14-13-5.1-0.46
13vsTulsaL25-26-10.01.41
14@UTSAW27-243.711414.00140.57
16vsNavyL16-176.2-0.26

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.8%
Passing plays
14.0%
Rushing plays
2.1%
Standard downs
3.9%
Passing downs
3.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.73
Pass / Rush EPA
0.83 / -0.21

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.