Skip to content
AJ Jones

#6AJ Jones

AJ Jones is a Versatile WR for Middle Tennessee. AJ's 2025 season produced 9.2 total EPA across 46 plays.

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 AJ Jones'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
28 Receptions216 Rec yards5 Rec TD7.7 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

9
Targets
11.8y
Avg depth
0.7y
After catch
67%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.8 yards in the air on an average target 2.9 yards deeper than the median. Another 0.7 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
0
0
short
4
50% · 11y
2
100% · 30y
2
100% · 20y
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

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness5
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down0
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)67th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.75 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.03 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -16).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0301.03Wk 1 vs Austin Peay: -0.03 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Nevada: -0.13 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Marshall: -0.59 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Kennesaw State: -1.01 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Missouri State: -0.00 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Delaware: +0.46 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Jacksonville State: -0.14 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida International: +0.34 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Western Kentucky: +0.58 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Sam Houston: +0.20 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs New Mexico State: +1.03 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsAustin PeayL14-34155.005-0.03
3@NevadaW14-13-13.4-0.13
4vsMarshallL28-42-4.5144.004-0.59
5@Kennesaw StateL16-24-5.4177.007-1.01
7vsMissouri StateL20-22-10.75224.405-0.00
9@DelawareL28-31-10.95346.81110.46
10vsJacksonville StateL21-24-6.72157.5012-0.14
11vsFlorida InternationalL30-56-10.53165.3160.34
12@Western KentuckyL26-421.64338.31270.58
13vsSam HoustonW31-17-27.823015.00270.20
14@New Mexico StateW31-24-15.545012.52241.03

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.4%
Passing plays
10.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.0%
Passing downs
7.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.38
Passing downs
-0.10
Pass / Rush EPA
0.20 / —

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.