Cooper is one of those prospects who is easier to evaluate on tape than to explain on paper, because the physical profile suggests a larger role than the production justified and the production suggests a smaller role than the physical profile warrants. He plays bigger than his listed dimensions imply, he scores at a rate that demands attention, and he disappears for stretches that make you question both. The evaluation sits in the tension between those observations, and the conclusion is more positive than the consensus suggests while being honest about what is missing.

The red zone data is the most concrete starting point. Twenty touchdowns across two seasons is not a product of volume alone; it reflects a player with the body control, hand strength and competitive instinct to win at the catch point in condensed areas where defenders are physical and windows are small. I noticed how effectively he absorbed contact and maintained his line on in-breaking routes, using his frame to shield defenders and secure the ball cleanly against resistance. His hands attack the ball away from his body, which gives him a wider catch radius than his height alone would suggest and makes him a reliable target when the quarterback needs to place the ball in a specific spot.

His speed profile, evidenced by a 4.42 forty and an 8.70 RAS, is more than functional; it builds through his routes with a smooth drive phase that carries momentum into the intermediate range where he does his best work. He is not a sudden separator but his change of direction mechanics are efficient: he generates force off his plant foot and transitions with enough control to stay on schedule within play structure. After the catch, he offers some functional contact balance, particularly against high contact where he can shrug off weaker tackle attempts and extend plays forward.

His alignment flexibility is genuine and underutilised on his Indiana tape. He played primarily from a slot role in eleven-personnel packages but moved outside intermittently, and his profile as a player who can be effective across interior and exterior alignments adds versatility value that a thoughtful offensive staff could exploit more systematically than Indiana did.

The usage pattern at Indiana raises questions that the tape alone cannot fully resolve. He was frequently treated as the third-best receiver on the roster despite a physical profile that suggests he should have commanded more involvement, which points either to a scheme that did not suit him or to in-practice habits that reduced his trust level with the coaching staff. The snap-off-the-ball timing issues that appear on tape, where he occasionally mistimes the snap and disrupts the structure of the play from the start, would directly affect how much a staff trusted him with specific route assignments in time-sensitive situations.

His route running lacks the detail and manipulation that would allow him to create separation consistently without athletic assistance. He runs to locations rather than constructing routes that deceive; against defenders who are assigned and disciplined, this reliance on natural ability without refinement is the primary ceiling factor. His run blocking effort is poor and shows no progression across the tape reviewed, which limits his role in the complete offensive picture and is the likely contributor to the inconsistent usage. The combination of snap timing, route detail and blocking effort creates a pattern that offenses eventually manage around rather than through.