Skip to content
T.J. Moore

#1T.J. Moore

T.J. Moore is a Versatile WR for Clemson. T.J.'s 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 81 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 T.J. Moore'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
52 Receptions837 Rec yards4 Rec TD16.1 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

7
Targets
10.9y
Avg depth
4.2y
After catch
57%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.9 yards in the air on an average target 1.9 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
0% · 0y
short
1
0% · 0y
0
5
80% · 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
  • Volume26
  • Explosiveness61
  • Consistency76
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency76th %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.
  • 9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.58 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs SMU (SP+ 13).

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.5801.58Wk 1 vs LSU: +0.11 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Troy: -0.04 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia Tech: +0.87 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Syracuse: -0.08 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs North Carolina: +1.55 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Boston College: +0.92 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs SMU: +1.58 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Duke: +0.44 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida State: +0.73 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Louisville: +0.45 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Furman: +0.49 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs South Carolina: +0.78 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsLSUL10-1710.345513.80260.11
2vsTroyW27-16-4.8111.001-0.04
3@Georgia TechL21-249.32168.0090.87
4vsSyracuseL21-34-13.189211.5020-0.08
6@North CarolinaW38-10-6.6510821.61751.55
7@Boston CollegeW41-10-8.511111.00110.92
8vsSMUL24-3513.4512424.82621.58
10vsDukeL45-466.629246.01750.44
11vsFlorida StateW24-107.233712.30240.73
12@LouisvilleW20-1912.466811.30220.45
13vsFurmanW45-1034916.30190.49
14@South CarolinaW28-145.9610116.80310.78
20vsPenn StateL10-2218.168313.8044

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.1%
Passing plays
16.0%
Rushing plays
0.8%
Standard downs
8.0%
Passing downs
11.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.40
Passing downs
0.75
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / 0.19

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.