Skip to content
Keaton Kubecka

#3Keaton Kubecka

Keaton Kubecka is a Slot Specialist WR for Kansas.

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 Keaton Kubecka'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
17 Receptions157 Rec yards1 Rec TD9.2 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns28 KR yards0 KR TD3 Punt returns18 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.

8
Targets
11.2y
Avg depth
2.5y
After catch
50%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.2 yards in the air on an average target 2.3 yards deeper than the median. Another 2.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
5
60% · 40y
0
3
33% · 6y
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 WR peers

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness15
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down84
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

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)67th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 5 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 0.25 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.90 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs UCF (SP+ -1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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 · 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
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9000.90Wk 1 vs Wagner: -0.34 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Missouri: -0.18 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs West Virginia: -0.38 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Cincinnati: +0.56 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UCF: +0.90 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas Tech: -0.59 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Kansas State: -0.16 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oklahoma State: +0.51 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Arizona: +0.49 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Iowa State: +0.60 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0vsFresno StateW31-71.811212.0112
1vsWagnerW46-7-0.34
2@MissouriL31-4214.4294.505-0.18
4vsWest VirginiaW41-10-6.8133.003-0.38
5vsCincinnatiL34-374.535317.70180.56
6@UCFW27-20-1.22199.50150.90
7@Texas TechL17-4227.6284.004-0.59
9vsKansas StateL17-427.02136.508-0.16
10vsOklahoma StateW38-21-15.1166.0060.51
11@ArizonaL20-2412.011414.00140.49
13@Iowa StateL14-389.922010.00130.60

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
8.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.1%
Passing downs
6.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.09
Passing downs
0.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.18 / —

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.