Skip to content
Sam Roush

#86Sam Roush

Sam Roush is a Versatile TE for Stanford. Sam's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 66 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Sam Roush'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
49 Receptions545 Rec yards2 Rec TD11.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume28
  • Explosiveness27
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down67
Player type
Versatile TE

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 consistency50th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.32 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.20 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Boston College (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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 · TE · 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
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Johnny LanganRutgers0.2400.08.9
Jackson AckerWisconsin0.2100.115.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.2001.20Wk 2 vs BYU: -0.67 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Boston College: +1.20 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs San José State: +0.73 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs SMU: +0.68 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Florida State: +0.42 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Miami: -0.22 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Pittsburgh: +0.48 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs North Carolina: +0.29 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs California: -0.33 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Notre Dame: +0.61 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0@Hawai'iL20-231.7362.003
2@BYUL3-2715.9122.002-0.67
3vsBoston CollegeW30-20-8.537926.31691.20
5vsSan José StateW30-29-14.334314.31210.73
7@SMUL10-3413.488911.10140.68
8vsFlorida StateW20-137.266310.50160.42
9@MiamiL7-4220.75234.607-0.22
10vsPittsburghL20-358.4810413.00530.48
11@North CarolinaL15-20-6.66498.20120.29
13vsCaliforniaW31-10-3.22147.0011-0.33
14vsNotre DameL20-4924.447318.30270.61

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.8%
Passing plays
18.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
8.5%
Passing downs
12.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.34
Pass / Rush EPA
0.28 / —

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.