Skip to content
Devin Gandy

#1Devin Gandy

Devin Gandy is a Versatile WR for Sacramento State.

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 Devin Gandy'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.

2024 Production

Receiving
11 Receptions123 Rec yards0 Rec TD11.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency3
  • 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 consistency3th %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.
  • 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 — 1.59 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.32 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs East Texas A&M.

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · EPA per play, week by week

+1.3201.32Wk 3 vs Nicholls: +0.87 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs East Texas A&M: +1.32 EPA/play4Wk 10 vs Portland State: +1.02 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Montana State: -1.26 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cal Poly: -0.23 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs UC Davis: -0.07 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+EPA/playPassRush
3Nicholls0.870.87
4East Texas A&M1.321.32
10Portland State1.021.02
11Montana State-1.26-1.26
12Cal Poly-0.23-0.23
13UC Davis-0.07-0.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.9%
Passing plays
5.3%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.7%
Passing downs
3.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.34
Passing downs
1.19
Pass / Rush EPA
0.65 / —

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.