#17Chris Brazzell II

WR·Tennessee·2025

Chris Brazzell II is a Versatile WR for Tennessee. Chris's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 85 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 Chris Brazzell II'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

62 Receptions1017 Rec yards9 Rec TD16.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume29
Explosiveness63
Consistency75
Pass-Down43

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 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.
▸9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.20 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.84 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Georgia (SP+ 24).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4
DeAndre Hughes	Air Force	2021	60	0.470	1.3	28.2
Keytaon Thompson	Mississippi State	2017	70	0.460	1.2	32.2
Savion Williams	TCU	2024	56	0.450	1.1	25.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.	Central Michigan	2022	53	0.460	1.6	24.4

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	vsSyracuse	W45-26	-13.1	5	62	12.4	0	18	0.73
2	vsEast Tennessee State	W72-17	—	9	125	13.9	2	32	1.00
3	vsGeorgia	L41-44	24.1	6	177	29.5	3	72	1.84
4	vsUAB	W56-24	-15.8	5	62	12.4	1	22	0.56
5	@Mississippi State	W41-34	4.1	6	105	17.5	1	32	1.52
7	vsArkansas	W34-31	5.1	1	5	5.0	0	5	-0.65
8	@Alabama	L20-37	14.8	7	66	9.4	0	19	0.55
9	@Kentucky	W56-34	1.8	4	138	34.5	1	50	1.16
10	vsOklahoma	L27-33	18.3	6	68	11.3	0	27	0.91
12	vsNew Mexico State	W42-9	-15.5	3	65	21.7	0	45	0.66
13	@Florida	W31-11	3.5	4	53	13.3	0	19	0.34
14	vsVanderbilt	L24-45	20.3	6	91	15.2	1	52	0.18

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

10.2%

Passing plays

21.0%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

9.0%

Passing downs

13.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.82
Passing downs: 0.78
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.81 / —

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