Skip to content
Tanner Knue

#24Tanner Knue

Tanner Knue is a Versatile WR for Eastern Michigan. Tanner's 2023 season ranks in the 80th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 72 plays — a above-average rate for the WR.

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 Tanner Knue'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
50 Receptions479 Rec yards3 Rec TD9.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency80
  • Volume34
  • Explosiveness17
  • Consistency56
  • 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)80th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency56th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the WR position (80th percentile).
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.71 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Kent State (SP+ -26).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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
Malik DunnerBall State0.2900.422.0
Noah ShortArmy0.3000.520.7
Xavier WhiteTexas Tech0.3000.518.6
Chris TyreeNotre Dame0.3100.623.6
Ainias SmithTexas A&M0.3100.517.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.7100.71Wk 1 vs Howard: +0.56 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Minnesota: +0.25 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Massachusetts: -0.23 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Central Michigan: +0.67 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Ball State: -0.15 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kent State: +0.71 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Northern Illinois: +0.38 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Western Michigan: +0.18 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Toledo: -0.01 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Akron: +0.40 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Buffalo: -0.24 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsHowardW33-238739.11200.56
2@MinnesotaL6-250.44215.3070.25
3vsMassachusettsW19-17-17.53258.3011-0.23
5@Central MichiganL23-26-19.17689.71240.67
6vsBall StateW24-10-14.93237.7011-0.15
7vsKent StateW28-14-26.358517.01340.71
8@Northern IllinoisL13-20-7.52105.00100.38
9vsWestern MichiganL21-45-15.956613.20390.18
11@ToledoL23-493.73227.3016-0.01
12vsAkronW30-27-21.68799.90340.40
13@BuffaloW24-11-15.2273.505-0.24

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
11.8%
Passing plays
24.6%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
10.3%
Passing downs
15.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.09
Passing downs
0.66
Pass / Rush EPA
0.33 / -0.34

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.