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

Air yards

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

8
Targets
16.8y
Avg depth
0.7y
After catch
38%
Catch rate

The ball travels 16.8 yards in the air on an average target 7.9 yards deeper than the median. Another 0.7 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
1
0% · 0y
1
0% · 0y
short
2
50% · 8y
1
100% · 4y
2
50% · 1y
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

  • 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.