Skip to content
Blaze Kamoku

#18Blaze Kamoku

Blaze Kamoku is a Versatile WR for Hawai'i.

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 Blaze Kamoku'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
9 Receptions88 Rec yards1 Rec TD9.8 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns8 KR yards0 KR TD

Air yards

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

10
Targets
9.4y
Avg depth
2.3y
After catch
60%
Catch rate

The ball travels 9.4 yards in the air on an average target 0.5 yards deeper than the median. Another 2.3 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
1
100% · 24y
0
short
4
75% · 23y
3
33% · 7y
2
50% · 12y
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
  • Volume6
  • Explosiveness19
  • Consistency51
  • 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 consistency51th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 3 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 — 1.45 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.12 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Arizona (SP+ 12).

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.1202.12Wk 1 vs Arizona: +2.12 EPA/play1Wk 4 vs Fresno State: +0.99 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Air Force: +0.67 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Utah State: +0.33 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Colorado State: -0.57 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs San Diego State: -0.36 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs UNLV: +0.38 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@ArizonaL6-4012.011111.00112.12
3vsPortland StateW23-3
4vsFresno StateL21-231.822010.01100.99
5@Air ForceW44-35-3.222412.00120.67
7vsUtah StateW44-26-3.1177.0070.33
8@Colorado StateW31-19-15.6111.001-0.57
11vsSan Diego StateW38-66.711919.0019-0.36
13@UNLVL10-384.3166.0060.38
20vsCaliforniaW35-31-3.2

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.0%
Passing plays
3.3%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.1%
Passing downs
1.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.31
Passing downs
0.97
Pass / Rush EPA
0.45 / —

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.