Skip to content
Braylon Staley

#14Braylon Staley

Braylon Staley is a Slot Specialist WR for Tennessee. Braylon's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 98 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 Braylon Staley'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

Receiving
68 Receptions837 Rec yards6 Rec TD12.3 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Punt returns-5 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume30
  • Explosiveness35
  • Consistency75
  • Pass-Down90
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 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 0.28 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.78 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Florida (SP+ 4).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand deals.

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
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7801.78Wk 1 vs Syracuse: +1.42 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs East Tennessee State: +0.13 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia: +0.70 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs UAB: +0.57 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Mississippi State: -0.22 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Arkansas: +0.90 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Alabama: +0.28 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Kentucky: +0.59 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oklahoma: +0.86 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs New Mexico State: +1.04 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Florida: +1.78 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Vanderbilt: +0.03 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsSyracuseW45-26-13.149523.81731.42
2vsEast Tennessee StateW72-175397.80130.13
3vsGeorgiaL41-4424.199710.81320.70
4vsUABW56-24-15.835016.70310.57
5@Mississippi StateW41-344.144110.3026-0.22
7vsArkansasW34-315.1610918.20420.90
8@AlabamaL20-3714.810929.21300.28
9@KentuckyW56-341.8610517.50560.59
10vsOklahomaL27-3318.357515.02540.86
12vsNew Mexico StateW42-9-15.555811.61151.04
13@FloridaW31-113.511010.00101.78
14vsVanderbiltL24-4520.36355.80180.03
20vsIllinoisL28-3012.94317.8014

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.4%
Passing plays
21.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
8.8%
Passing downs
15.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.42
Passing downs
0.66
Pass / Rush EPA
0.51 / —

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.