Skip to content
Anthony Hankerson
Anthony Hankerson

#0Anthony Hankerson

Anthony Hankerson is a Featured Back for Oregon State.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Anthony Hankerson'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
1088 Rush yards9 Rush TD247 Carries4.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
22 Receptions123 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume97
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving42
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.29 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.60 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Lafayette.

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6000.60Wk 1 vs California: -0.14 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Fresno State: +0.03 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Texas Tech: -0.51 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Oregon: +0.03 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Houston: -0.09 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs App State: -0.30 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Wake Forest: +0.18 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Lafayette: +0.60 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Washington State: +0.08 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Sam Houston: +0.01 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Tulsa: -0.25 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Washington State: +0.12 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsCaliforniaL15-34-3.215422.814220-0.14
2vsFresno StateL27-361.8251365.400.03
3@Texas TechL14-4527.611121.10-0.51
4@OregonL7-4125.914382.7111300.03
5vsHoustonL24-277.423743.20-0.09
6@App StateL23-27-11.419643.402110-0.30
7vsWake ForestL14-395.7221014.601200.18
8vsLafayetteW45-13252048.240.60
10vsWashington StateW10-73.8251345.412-300.08
11vsSam HoustonL17-21-27.8331665.0253100.01
12@TulsaL14-31-10.019462.404240-0.25
14@Washington StateL8-323.816714.4032300.12

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
33.9%
Passing plays
7.9%
Rushing plays
65.1%
Standard downs
40.6%
Passing downs
19.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.03
Passing downs
0.01
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.21 / 0.01

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.