Skip to content
Omar Cooper Jr.

#3Omar Cooper Jr.

Omar Cooper Jr. is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Indiana. Omar's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 85 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 Omar Cooper Jr.'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
70 Receptions961 Rec yards13 Rec TD13.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness45
  • Consistency64
  • 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 consistency64th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.56 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.72 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Kennesaw State (SP+ -5).

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
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

+3.7203.72Wk 1 vs Old Dominion: +0.63 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Kennesaw State: +3.72 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Indiana State: +1.80 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Illinois: +0.88 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Iowa: +0.23 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Oregon: +0.29 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Michigan State: +1.37 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs UCLA: -0.87 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Maryland: +0.78 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Penn State: -0.00 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Wisconsin: +0.91 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Purdue: +1.16 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsOld DominionW27-145.925226.00460.63
2vsKennesaw StateW56-9-5.414040.00403.72
3vsIndiana StateW73-01020720.74581.80
4vsIllinoisW63-1012.967813.01390.88
5@IowaW20-1519.745513.81240.23
7@OregonW30-2025.97588.30110.29
8vsMichigan StateW38-13-3.4811514.41481.37
9vsUCLAW56-6-8.7221.003-0.87
10@MarylandW55-100.678612.31220.78
11@Penn StateW27-2418.16325.3122-0.00
12vsWisconsinW31-7-4.433913.01290.91
14@PurdueW56-3-6.136421.31431.16
20vsOregonW56-2225.93175.718
20vsAlabamaW38-314.834515.0138
20vsMiamiW27-2120.757114.2025

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.8%
Passing plays
21.5%
Rushing plays
0.5%
Standard downs
8.5%
Passing downs
9.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.57
Passing downs
1.25
Pass / Rush EPA
0.71 / 1.52

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.