Skip to content
Joshua Long

#9Joshua Long

Joshua Long is a Slot Specialist TE for Eastern Michigan. Joshua's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 58 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 Joshua Long'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
37 Receptions357 Rec yards3 Rec TD9.6 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

13
Targets
4.1y
Avg depth
5.6y
After catch
85%
Catch rate

The ball travels 4.1 yards in the air on an average target 4.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 5.6 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
1
0% · 0y
0
short
2
100% · 25y
6
83% · 49y
4
100% · 4y
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 · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume20
  • Explosiveness18
  • Consistency74
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Slot Specialist TE

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency74th %ile · average
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.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.23 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.92 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Louisiana (SP+ -10).

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
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
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

+0.9200.92Wk 1 vs Texas State: +0.45 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Long Island University: +0.56 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kentucky: +0.09 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Louisiana: +0.92 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Central Michigan: +0.40 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Buffalo: +0.62 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Northern Illinois: +0.80 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Miami (OH): +0.08 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Ohio: +0.01 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Bowling Green: -0.26 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ball State: +0.33 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Western Michigan: +0.68 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Texas StateL27-522.333110.31160.45
2vsLong Island UniversityL23-2823216.00190.56
3@KentuckyL23-481.844511.30250.09
4vsLouisianaW34-31-10.124221.01270.92
5@Central MichiganL13-24-8.84369.00190.40
6@BuffaloL30-31-7.53175.7070.62
7vsNorthern IllinoisW16-10-16.755210.41150.80
8@Miami (OH)L30-44-3.42178.50110.08
9vsOhioL21-28-4.03144.70120.01
11vsBowling GreenW27-21-12.63217.0011-0.26
12@Ball StateW24-9-23.04297.30130.33
14vsWestern MichiganL21-31-1.422110.50160.68

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.1%
Passing plays
13.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.0%
Passing downs
9.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.52
Passing downs
0.18
Pass / Rush EPA
0.38 / —

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.