Skip to content
Langston Lewis

#20Langston Lewis

Langston Lewis is a Versatile WR for Central Michigan. Langston's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 60 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

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 Langston Lewis'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
43 Receptions596 Rec yards3 Rec TD13.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume23
  • Explosiveness46
  • Consistency58
  • Pass-Down61
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 consistency58th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.35 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.09 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Western Michigan (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 · 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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
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

+2.0902.09Wk 1 vs San José State: +0.27 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: +2.09 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Michigan: -0.25 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wagner: +0.66 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.65 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Akron: +0.25 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Bowling Green: -0.96 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Massachusetts: +1.18 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Western Michigan: +2.09 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Buffalo: +1.18 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kent State: +0.62 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Toledo: -0.25 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@San José StateW16-14-14.311414.00140.27
2@PittsburghL17-458.412121.00212.09
3@MichiganL3-6312.4144.004-0.25
4vsWagnerW49-104399.80170.66
5vsEastern MichiganW24-13-14.77456.41120.65
6@AkronL22-28-13.9144.0040.25
8@Bowling GreenW27-6-12.6-0.96
9vsMassachusettsW38-13-36.625728.50481.18
10@Western MichiganL21-24-1.4411127.81772.09
12vsBuffaloW38-19-7.5611819.71751.18
13@Kent StateW28-16-19.322914.50150.62
14vsToledoL3-216.067111.8037-0.25
20vsNorthwesternL7-345.888310.4021

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.2%
Passing plays
21.4%
Rushing plays
1.5%
Standard downs
7.8%
Passing downs
9.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.52
Passing downs
0.58
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / -0.53

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.