Skip to content
Noah Thomas

#5Noah Thomas

Noah Thomas is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Georgia.

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 Noah Thomas'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
16 Receptions254 Rec yards4 Rec TD15.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume10
  • Explosiveness59
  • Consistency88
  • 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 consistency88th %ile · above avg
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.
  • 5 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 0.11 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.51 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Texas (SP+ 16).

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.5101.51Wk 2 vs Austin Peay: +1.04 EPA/play2Wk 7 vs Auburn: +0.79 EPA/play7Wk 10 vs Florida: +0.98 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Mississippi State: +1.34 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Texas: +1.51 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Charlotte: +0.31 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsAustin PeayW28-63248.00111.04
7@AuburnW20-1011.613030.00300.79
10vsFloridaW24-203.512222.01220.98
11@Mississippi StateW41-214.137826.01641.34
12vsTexasW35-1016.24328.02171.51
13vsCharlotteW35-3-26.746817.00380.31

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.6%
Passing plays
8.0%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.7%
Passing downs
3.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.55
Passing downs
1.02
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / —

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.