Efficiency & Role
EPA = expected points added per play. Compared with every FBS WR/TE who qualifies
Advanced
Computed from every play, garbage time excluded. FBS rank among players with enough volume
| Receiving | Value | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Targets | 37 | — |
| Target share | 11.7% | 455th / 534 |
| Catch rate | 56.8% | 411th / 534 |
| Success rate per target | 45.9% | 308th / 534 |
| Yards per target | 6.6 | 399th / 534 |
| Explosive catches | 8.1% | 372nd / 534 |
| Deep-target rate | 16.2% | — |
| 3rd-down targets | 11 | — |
| Red-zone targets | 4 | — |
Charting
Where Hampton's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
Where he's targeted39 targets charted
Game Log
Aeryn Hampton's box score, game by game, from ESPN, with a 0–10 game score for each (hover it for how it works). Click a result for the full game
| Receiving | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Game score | Rec | Yds | Y/R | TD | Long |
| 1 | @ Houston | L 20–33 | 5.9 | 4 | 28 | 7.0 | 0 | 13 |
| 2 |  Texas Tech | L 24–35 | 6.7 | 4 | 50 | 12.5 | 0 | 18 |
| 3 |  Montana | W 52–17 | 8.1 | 6 | 94 | 15.7 | 1 | 28 |
| 4 | @ UTEP | W 33–7 | 5.2 | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| 5 | @ Colorado State | W 56–26 | 4.3 | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 |
| 6 |  San Diego State | W 66–14 | 6.5 | 3 | 48 | 16.0 | 0 | 28 |
| 7 |  Washington State | W 48–30 | 2.6 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | @ Fresno State | L 22–38 | 4.2 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| 2026 · 8 games | 5.4 | 22 | 253 | 11.5 | 1 | 28 | ||
2026 Season Stats
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Receiving | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Receptions | 22 | 272nd / 2089 |
| Yards | 253 | 339th / 2074 |
| Yards / catch | 11.5 | 290th / 460 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 412th / 914 |
| Long | 28 | — |
| Defense | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Tackles | 1 | 4438th / 5664 |
| Solo | 1 | — |
| Tackles for loss | 0 | — |
| Sacks | 0 | — |
| QB hurries | 0 | — |
| Passes defended | 0 | — |
| Defensive TD | 0 | — |
Snaps by Game
Estimated snaps from a model trained on real NFL snap counts. Ranges in brackets are where the real number lands 80% of the time: wide for a single game, tighter over the season. How it works
| Game | Start | Team plays | Est. snaps | Plays involved | Plays made | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Houston | ✓ WR | 73 | ~49 (32–60) | 7 | · | 67% |
| Wk 2 · Texas Tech | ✓ WR | 71 | ~58 (38–71) | 10 | 1 | 82% |
| Wk 3 · Montana | ✓ WR | 68 | ~47 (31–57) | 7 | · | 69% |
| Wk 4 · UTEP | ✓ WR | 57 | ~18 (6–25) | 2 | · | 32% |
| Wk 5 · Colorado State | ✓ WR | 70 | ~35 (11–48) | 1 | · | 50% |
| Wk 6 · San Diego State | ✓ WR | 92 | ~49 (32–60) | 4 | · | 53% |
| Wk 7 · Washington State | — | 71 | ~42 (28–51) | 3 | · | 59% |
| Wk 9 · Fresno State | — | 87 | ~49 (32–60) | 5 | · | 56% |
| Season | 6 GS | 589 | 347 (291–404) | 39 | 1 | 59% |
Position Room
14 WRs on the Oregon State roster, ordered by rec
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Rec | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Jesse Legree | WR | FR | 53 | 1110 | 14 | 21% | +0.97 |
| 7 | Aeryn Hampton | WR | SO | 22 | 253 | 1 | 15% | +0.52 |
| 0 | Aaron Butler | WR | SO | 16 | 233 | 1 | 10% | +0.28 |
| 16 | Cynai Thomas | WR | FR | 14 | 177 | 0 | 6% | +0.49 |
| 4 | Xayvion Noland | WR | JR | 5 | 41 | 0 | 6% | +0.81 |
| 15 | Jameson Powell | WR | FR | 4 | 22 | 1 | 4% | -0.35 |
| 1 | Adonis McDaniel | WR | SR | 2 | 30 | 0 | 3% | +1.26 |
| 14 | Eddie Freauff | WR | SO | 2 | 17 | 1 | 4% | +0.81 |
| 17 | Malachi Durant | WR | SO | 2 | 21 | 0 | 3% | +0.49 |
| 5 | Karson Boschma | WR | SR | — | — | — | 2% | -0.75 |
| 18 | Jayden Padgett | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | MJ Kennybrew | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 41 | Jhae Drummer | WR | SR | — | — | — | 3% | -0.94 |
| 88 | Ross Nickson | WR | JR | — | — | — | — | — |
Stats, EPA and usage come from CollegeFootballData.com and refresh daily. FBS ranks only count players with enough volume for the stat to mean something. Qualifying for EPA takes 4+ plays per team game. Oregon State depth chart →