Skip to content
Jeron Askren

#88Jeron Askren

Jeron Askren is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Missouri State.

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 Jeron Askren'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
19 Receptions224 Rec yards5 Rec TD11.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness32
  • Consistency49
  • Pass-Down63
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency49th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 1.27 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.73 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Louisiana Tech (SP+ -1).

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

+2.7302.73Wk 1 vs USC: -0.36 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Marshall: +2.32 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs SMU: -0.55 EPA/play3Wk 7 vs Middle Tennessee: -1.07 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs New Mexico State: +0.95 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Liberty: -0.49 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UTEP: +2.51 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kennesaw State: +1.37 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Louisiana Tech: +2.73 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@USCL13-7316.9144.004-0.36
2@MarshallW21-20-4.5188.0182.32
3vsSMUL10-2813.4155.005-0.55
7@Middle TennesseeW22-20-16.01-1-1.000-1.07
9@New Mexico StateW24-17-15.55357.0190.95
11@LibertyW21-17-9.0166.006-0.49
12vsUTEPW38-24-17.533712.32262.51
13@Kennesaw StateL34-41-5.435418.00311.37
14vsLouisiana TechL30-42-1.317575.01752.73
20vsArkansas StateL28-34-8.8210.501

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.8%
Passing plays
6.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.4%
Passing downs
2.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.62
Passing downs
0.70
Pass / Rush EPA
0.64 / —

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.