Skip to content
Jackson Verdugo
Jackson Verdugo

#9Jackson Verdugo

TE·Florida International·2025

Jackson Verdugo is a Versatile TE for Florida International.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Jackson Verdugo'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
10 Receptions101 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness21
  • Consistency60
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile TE

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 consistency60th %ile · average
Key findings
  • ▸Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸3 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 0.74 from the first to second half of the season.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.02 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Kennesaw State (SP+ -5).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.020−2.02Wk 1 vs Bethune-Cookman: +0.13 EPA/play1Wk 4 vs Delaware: +0.45 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs UConn: +0.32 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Western Kentucky: +0.04 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Kennesaw State: +2.02 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Missouri State: +1.42 EPA/play10Wk 14 vs Sam Houston: -0.32 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBethune-CookmanW42-9—155.0050.13
4vsDelawareL16-38-10.922412.00180.45
6@UConnL10-515.111818.00180.32
8@Western KentuckyW25-61.63134.3180.04
9vsKennesaw StateL26-45-5.412121.00212.02
10@Missouri StateL21-28-10.711414.00141.42
14vsSam HoustonW56-16-27.8166.006-0.32

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.9%
Passing plays
5.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.6%
Passing downs
1.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.26
Passing downs
1.37
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / —

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.