Skip to content
Khamari Anderson
Khamari Anderson

#15Khamari Anderson

Khamari Anderson is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Arizona 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 Khamari Anderson'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
5 Receptions24 Rec yards1 Rec TD4.8 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns22 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency50
  • Volume6
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency34
  • Pass-Down96
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)50th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency34th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.15 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.68 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Northern Arizona.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
Robby PreckelNorthwestern0.0600.12.5
A.J. DoyleMassachusetts0.0400.02.1
Blake BellOklahoma0.0700.14.4
Kaden FeaginIllinois0.1500.07.8
Jaheim BellSouth Carolina0.1100.08.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.6802.68Wk 1 vs Northern Arizona: +2.68 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Texas State: -0.30 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs TCU: -0.55 EPA/play5Wk 9 vs Houston: +1.11 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs West Virginia: -0.19 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNorthern ArizonaW38-192.68
3vsTexas StateW34-152.3144.004-0.30
5vsTCUW27-248.31-1-1.000-0.55
9vsHoustonL16-247.4188.0081.11
12vsWest VirginiaW25-23-6.8155.005-0.19
20vsDukeL39-426.6188.018

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.1%
Passing plays
4.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
1.6%
Passing downs
3.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.08
Passing downs
0.20
Pass / Rush EPA
0.04 / —

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.