Skip to content
Darrell Harding Jr.
Darrell Harding Jr.

#3Darrell Harding Jr.

Darrell Harding Jr. is a Vertical Threat WR for Buffalo.

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 Darrell Harding Jr.'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
23 Receptions451 Rec yards3 Rec TD19.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness84
  • Consistency81
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency81th %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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.51 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.69 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Wisconsin (SP+ 9).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.6903.69Wk 1 vs Wisconsin: +3.69 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Fordham: +1.04 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Liberty: +2.38 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Louisiana: +0.01 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Central Michigan: +1.73 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Bowling Green: +1.43 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Kent State: +0.28 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Toledo: +1.46 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Ohio: +1.40 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Miami (OH): +0.97 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Eastern Michigan: +2.06 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@WisconsinL17-389.415151.00513.69
2vsFordhamL37-4011515.01151.04
3vsLibertyL27-558.045914.81212.38
4@LouisianaL38-450.42189.00120.01
5@AkronW13-10-21.6166.006
6vsCentral MichiganW37-13-19.135117.00241.73
7vsBowling GreenL14-24-7.823919.51241.43
8@Kent StateW24-6-26.33279.00160.28
10@ToledoL13-313.724422.00321.46
11vsOhioL10-20-1.615252.00521.40
12@Miami (OH)L10-232.812727.00270.97
13vsEastern MichiganL11-24-12.326231.00372.06

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.1%
Passing plays
8.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.2%
Passing downs
6.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.34
Passing downs
0.93
Pass / Rush EPA
1.17 / —

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.