Skip to content
Caden High

#0Caden High

Caden High is a Slot Specialist WR for Stanford. Caden's 2025 season produced 17.6 total EPA across 49 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 Caden High'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
37 Receptions414 Rec yards1 Rec TD11.2 Yards/rec
Returns
12 Kick returns237 KR yards0 KR TD2 Punt returns2 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

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

7
Targets
13.1y
Avg depth
1.0y
After catch
86%
Catch rate

The ball travels 13.1 yards in the air on an average target 4.1 yards deeper than the median. Another 1.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
2
100% · 29y
4
75% · 43y
1
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

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume21
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency27
  • Pass-Down62
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency27th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.17 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs San José State (SP+ -14).

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
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
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

+1.1701.17Wk 2 vs BYU: +0.03 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Boston College: +0.79 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Virginia: +0.05 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs San José State: +1.17 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs SMU: -0.42 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Florida State: +0.68 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Miami: +0.72 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Pittsburgh: -0.13 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs North Carolina: +0.48 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs California: -0.82 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Notre Dame: -0.03 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0@Hawai'iL20-231.72157.5011
2@BYUL3-2715.93299.70260.03
3vsBoston CollegeW30-20-8.522211.00200.79
4@VirginiaL20-4811.12147.00120.05
5vsSan José StateW30-29-14.3511022.00341.17
7@SMUL10-3413.4100.000-0.42
8vsFlorida StateW20-137.212929.00290.68
9@MiamiL7-4220.733612.01210.72
10vsPittsburghL20-358.43237.7010-0.13
11@North CarolinaL15-20-6.61010210.20230.48
13vsCaliforniaW31-10-3.2100.000-0.82
14vsNotre DameL20-4924.44348.5032-0.03

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.3%
Passing plays
13.1%
Rushing plays
0.6%
Standard downs
4.2%
Passing downs
13.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.32
Passing downs
0.39
Pass / Rush EPA
0.36 / —

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.