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 | 16 | — |
| Target share | 10.3% | — |
| Catch rate | 56.2% | — |
| Success rate per target | 43.8% | — |
| Yards per target | 9.2 | — |
| Explosive catches | 12.5% | — |
| Deep-target rate | 12.5% | — |
| 3rd-down targets | 5 | — |
| Red-zone targets | 2 | — |
Charting
Where Hall's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
Where he's targeted19 targets charted
Game Log
JonAnthony Hall'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 |  Hawai'i | W 37–27 | 7.3 | 2 | 81 | 40.5 | 0 | 57 |
| 1 |  Miami | L 6–45 | 3.9 | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| 3 | @ Duke | L 7–35 | 5.4 | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 | 14 |
| 4 |  Georgia Tech | W 34–27 | 5.2 | 1 | 18 | 18.0 | 0 | 18 |
| 5 | @ Wake Forest | L 3–57 | 3.9 | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| 6 | @ Notre Dame | L 7–58 | 5.4 | 1 | 21 | 21.0 | 0 | 21 |
| 7 |  Elon | W 34–7 | 7.1 | 5 | 70 | 14.0 | 0 | 32 |
| 2026 · 7 games | 5.5 | 13 | 223 | 17.2 | 0 | 57 | ||
2026 Season Stats
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Receiving | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Receptions | 13 | 422nd / 1994 |
| Yards | 223 | 289th / 1980 |
| Yards / catch | 17.2 | — |
| Touchdowns | 0 | — |
| Long | 57 | — |
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 | Penalties | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Hawai'i | ✓ WR | 71 | ~44 (29–54) | 6 | 1 | 62% |
| Wk 1 · Miami | ✓ WR | 65 | ~37 (12–51) | 4 | · | 57% |
| Wk 3 · Duke | — | 58 | ~16 (5–22) | 2 | · | 28% |
| Wk 4 · Georgia Tech | — | 72 | ~8 (2–13) | 1 | · | 11% |
| Wk 5 · Wake Forest | — | 67 | ~7 (2–11) | 1 | · | 10% |
| Wk 6 · Notre Dame | — | 44 | ~13 (4–21) | 1 | · | 30% |
| Wk 7 · Elon | — | 73 | ~43 (28–52) | 5 | · | 59% |
| Season | 2 GS | 450 | 168 (104–204) | 20 | 1 | 37% |
Position Room
15 WRs on the Stanford roster, ordered by rec
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Rec | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Caden High | WR | SR | 21 | 307 | 3 | 16% | +0.55 |
| 23 | Nico Brown | WR | JR | 18 | 193 | 1 | 17% | +0.39 |
| 4 | Jordan Onovughe | WR | JR | 16 | 156 | 0 | 8% | +0.54 |
| 11 | JonAnthony Hall | WR | FR | 13 | 223 | 0 | 8% | +0.67 |
| 89 | Atticus Joseph | WR | FR | 8 | 83 | 1 | 7% | +0.65 |
| 2 | Zion Robinson | WR | FR | 7 | 155 | 0 | 8% | -0.08 |
| Liam Thorpe | WR | 5 | 56 | 0 | 10% | +0.39 | ||
| 3 | Marcus Brown | WR | SO | 1 | 10 | 0 | 2% | +0.51 |
| 18 | Langdon Horace | WR | FR | 1 | 9 | 0 | 3% | +0.58 |
| 14 | Dre Pollard | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | Carter Shaw | WR | JR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | David Pantelis | WR | SR | — | — | — | 3% | -1.17 |
| 22 | Daylen Sharper | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 80 | Jacob Butler | WR | FR | — | — | — | 0% | -1.23 |
| 82 | Tyler Kuo | WR | JR | — | — | — | 3% | -0.46 |
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. Stanford depth chart →