Skip to content
Moose Muhammad III
Moose Muhammad III

#7Moose Muhammad III

Moose Muhammad III is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Texas A&M.

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 Moose Muhammad III'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.

2024 Production

Receiving
6 Receptions55 Rec yards2 Rec TD9.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume6
  • Explosiveness14
  • Consistency70
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Red Zone Weapon WR

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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency70th %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.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 2.53 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -19).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.5302.53Wk 2 vs McNeese: +1.82 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Florida: +1.26 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Arkansas: -0.11 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Missouri: -0.17 EPA/play6Wk 12 vs New Mexico State: +2.53 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsMcNeeseW52-1022311.51201.82
3@FloridaW33-2013.812020.00201.26
5vsArkansasW21-1711.0144.004-0.11
6vsMissouriW41-1014.0122.002-0.17
12vsNew Mexico StateW38-3-19.0166.0162.53

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.1%
Passing plays
5.2%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.6%
Passing downs
1.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.84
Passing downs
3.38
Pass / Rush EPA
1.20 / —

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.