#5Boobie Curry

WR·Buffalo·2023

Boobie Curry is a Versatile WR for Buffalo. Boobie's 2023 season produced 17.1 total EPA across 39 plays.

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 Boobie Curry'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.

2023 Production

Receiving

29 Receptions303 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume18
Explosiveness23
Consistency53
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 consistency53th %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.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.42 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.82 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Ohio (SP+ -2).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Dane Kinamon	Air Force	2021	39	0.410	0.7	16.0
Keytaon Thompson	Virginia	2021	41	0.370	0.6	15.2
Micah Davis	Air Force	2021	44	0.370	0.6	16.3
Savion Williams	TCU	2024	56	0.450	1.1	25.2
JoJo Natson	Utah State	2014	51	0.390	1.0	19.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	@Wisconsin	L17-38	9.4	3	0	0.0	0	6	-1.01
2	vsFordham	L37-40	—	4	23	5.8	0	9	0.71
3	vsLiberty	L27-55	8.0	3	30	10.0	0	18	0.83
4	@Louisiana	L38-45	0.4	1	16	16.0	0	16	0.18
5	@Akron	W13-10	-21.6	2	13	6.5	1	9	—
6	vsCentral Michigan	W37-13	-19.1	4	74	18.5	0	29	1.11
8	@Kent State	W24-6	-26.3	2	17	8.5	0	9	-0.30
10	@Toledo	L13-31	3.7	3	31	10.3	0	15	0.56
11	vsOhio	L10-20	-1.6	4	66	16.5	0	48	1.82
12	@Miami (OH)	L10-23	2.8	1	16	16.0	0	16	0.03
13	vsEastern Michigan	L11-24	-12.3	2	17	8.5	0	12	0.86

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

6.3%

Passing plays

12.9%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

5.7%

Passing downs

7.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.18
Passing downs: 0.96
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.44 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).