Skip to content
Shamar Porter

#5Shamar Porter

WR·UConn·2025

Shamar Porter is a Versatile WR for UConn.

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 Shamar Porter'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
17 Receptions219 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.9 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

6
Targets
-1.5y
Avg depth
19.2y
After catch
83%
Catch rate

The ball travels -1.5 yards in the air on an average target 10.4 yards shorter than the median. Another 19.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 39y
0
0
short
2
50% · 9y
1
100% · 3y
2
100% · 31y
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
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness39
  • Consistency61
  • Pass-Down49
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 consistency61th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 1.17 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.33 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Florida Atlantic (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 · 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
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Nick NashSan José State0.3100.514.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.3302.33Wk 1 vs Central Connecticut: -0.52 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Syracuse: -0.05 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Ball State: +1.58 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Buffalo: +0.25 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Florida International: -0.20 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Boston College: +1.83 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Rice: +0.18 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs Air Force: +1.19 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Florida Atlantic: +2.33 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsCentral ConnecticutW59-13166.006-0.52
2@SyracuseL20-27-13.13237.7010-0.05
4vsBall StateW31-25-23.013333.00331.58
5@BuffaloW20-17-7.53248.00130.25
6vsFlorida InternationalW51-10-10.52126.006-0.20
8@Boston CollegeW38-23-8.511010.00101.83
9@RiceL34-37-14.8166.0060.18
12vsAir ForceW26-16-3.224120.50311.19
13@Florida AtlanticW48-45-8.725829.01562.33
20vsArmyL16-410.8166.006

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
7.2%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.6%
Passing downs
4.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
0.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.33 / —

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.