Skip to content
Landon Sides

#7Landon Sides

Landon Sides is a Versatile WR for North Texas. Landon's 2025 season produced 25.1 total EPA across 46 plays.

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 Landon Sides'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
34 Receptions449 Rec yards1 Rec TD13.2 Yards/rec
Returns
5 Punt returns39 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness41
  • Consistency72
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile WR

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 consistency72th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 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 0.46 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.44 EPA/play in Wk 15 vs Tulane (SP+ 6).

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 · 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
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.4402.44Wk 2 vs Western Michigan: +0.21 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Washington State: +0.91 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Army: +0.62 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs South Alabama: +0.06 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs South Florida: +0.67 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Charlotte: +1.44 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Navy: +0.91 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs UAB: -0.09 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Rice: +1.47 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Temple: +0.02 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Tulane: +2.44 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2@Western MichiganW33-30-1.424120.50320.21
3vsWashington StateW59-103.833712.31180.91
4@ArmyW45-380.866811.30210.62
5vsSouth AlabamaW36-22-12.711111.00110.06
7vsSouth FloridaL36-6311.63248.00120.67
8vsUTSAW55-173.7
9@CharlotteW54-20-26.7511422.80601.44
10vsNavyW31-176.234414.70240.91
12@UABW53-24-15.8177.007-0.09
13@RiceW56-24-14.822311.50161.47
14vsTempleW52-25-5.122010.00160.02
15@TulaneL21-346.311111.00112.44
20vsSan Diego StateW49-476.75499.8023

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.8%
Passing plays
11.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.1%
Passing downs
5.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.43
Passing downs
0.95
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / —

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.