Skip to content
Evan Stewart

#7Evan Stewart

Evan Stewart is a Versatile WR for Oregon.

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 Evan Stewart'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
12 Receptions150 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.5 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns1 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.

10
Targets
-2.9y
Avg depth
14.0y
After catch
90%
Catch rate

The ball travels -2.9 yards in the air on an average target 11.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 14.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
3
100% · 16y
2
50% · 39y
5
100% · 26y
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 · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume43
  • Explosiveness37
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down11
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
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Peak game: 0.64 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Oklahoma State (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
Nick NashSan José State0.3100.514.0
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6400.64Wk 1 vs Boise State: -0.01 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma State: +0.64 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBoise StateW34-275.28729.0039-0.01
2@Oklahoma StateL31-391.147819.51380.64

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
15.2%
Passing plays
25.0%
Rushing plays
2.0%
Standard downs
12.5%
Passing downs
20.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.38
Passing downs
0.14
Pass / Rush EPA
0.36 / -1.51

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.