Skip to content
Zavion Thomas

#0Zavion Thomas

WR·LSU·2025

Zavion Thomas is a Versatile WR for LSU. Zavion's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 80 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 Zavion 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

Rushing
99 Rush yards1 Rush TD19 Carries5.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
41 Receptions488 Rec yards4 Rec TD11.9 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns22 KR yards0 KR TD17 Punt returns170 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume27
  • Explosiveness33
  • Consistency65
  • 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 consistency65th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — 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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.11 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.47 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs SE Louisiana.

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 ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Zach AbeyNavy0.3700.825.9
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4701.47Wk 1 vs Clemson: +0.29 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.38 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Florida: +0.83 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs SE Louisiana: +1.47 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Ole Miss: -0.00 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs South Carolina: -0.36 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Vanderbilt: +1.05 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Texas A&M: -0.17 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Alabama: +0.51 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Arkansas: +0.63 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Western Kentucky: -0.02 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Oklahoma: +0.69 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@ClemsonW17-109.511919.00190.29
2vsLouisiana TechW23-7-1.34358.80150.38
3vsFloridaW20-103.54358.81230.83
4vsSE LouisianaW56-1022613.01171.47
5@Ole MissL19-2424.036321.0050-0.00
7vsSouth CarolinaW20-105.9166.006-0.36
8@VanderbiltL24-3120.347518.81621.05
9vsTexas A&ML25-4920.7188.008-0.17
11@AlabamaL9-2014.85499.80200.51
12vsArkansasW23-225.168013.30340.63
13vsWestern KentuckyW13-101.66477.8018-0.02
14@OklahomaL13-1718.333010.01180.69
20vsHoustonL35-387.411515.0015

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.6%
Passing plays
13.1%
Rushing plays
5.4%
Standard downs
8.7%
Passing downs
11.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.18
Passing downs
0.82
Pass / Rush EPA
0.50 / 0.25

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.