Skip to content
Christian Moss

#5Christian Moss

Christian Moss is a Versatile WR for Kennesaw State. Christian's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 57 plays — a elite 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 Christian Moss'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
44 Receptions682 Rec yards2 Rec TD15.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness57
  • Consistency76
  • 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 consistency76th %ile · above 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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.34 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.73 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Liberty (SP+ -9).

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.7302.73Wk 2 vs Indiana: +0.84 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Merrimack: +0.60 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Arkansas State: +0.21 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Middle Tennessee: +2.54 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Louisiana Tech: +1.29 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Florida International: +1.18 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UTEP: -0.14 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs New Mexico State: +0.12 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Jacksonville State: +1.75 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Missouri State: +0.60 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Liberty: +2.73 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Jacksonville State: +2.03 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2@IndianaL9-5632.455410.80210.84
3vsMerrimackW27-1366811.30250.60
4vsArkansas StateW28-21-8.868414.00220.21
5vsMiddle TennesseeW24-16-16.02.54
7vsLouisiana TechW35-7-1.346616.50251.29
9@Florida InternationalW45-26-10.529346.51701.18
10vsUTEPW33-20-17.5263.007-0.14
11@New Mexico StateW24-21-15.511212.00120.12
12@Jacksonville StateL26-35-6.747218.00271.75
13vsMissouri StateW41-34-10.746817.00400.60
14@LibertyW48-42-9.037224.01302.73
15@Jacksonville StateW19-15-6.757515.00262.03
20vsWestern MichiganL6-41-1.42126.008

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.0%
Passing plays
13.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.5%
Passing downs
7.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.64
Passing downs
1.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.89 / —

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.