Skip to content
Jaren Kanak

#12Jaren Kanak

Jaren Kanak is a Versatile TE for Oklahoma. Jaren's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 52 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

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 Jaren Kanak'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 Receptions533 Rec yards0 Rec TD12.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness34
  • Consistency75
  • 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 consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 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 — 0.55 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.16 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Temple (SP+ -5).

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 · 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
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.1602.16Wk 1 vs Illinois State: +0.58 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Michigan: +0.95 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Temple: +2.16 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Auburn: +0.91 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Kent State: +0.94 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas: -0.04 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs South Carolina: +1.29 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ole Miss: +0.74 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Tennessee: -0.01 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Alabama: +0.05 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Missouri: +0.80 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs LSU: +0.25 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsIllinois StateW35-359018.00480.58
2vsMichiganW24-1312.456913.80310.95
3@TempleW42-3-5.148621.50312.16
4vsAuburnW24-1711.646215.50230.91
6vsKent StateW44-0-19.322110.50140.94
7vsTexasL6-2316.23206.709-0.04
8@South CarolinaW26-75.911616.00161.29
9vsOle MissL26-3424.033010.00160.74
10@TennesseeW33-2715.03165.308-0.01
12@AlabamaW23-2114.822311.50120.05
13vsMissouriW17-614.422412.00170.80
14vsLSUW17-1310.36549.00170.25
20vsAlabamaL24-3414.84225.508

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.2%
Passing plays
11.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.3%
Passing downs
8.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.51
Passing downs
0.83
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.