Skip to content
Dalton Stroman

#8Dalton Stroman

Dalton Stroman is a Vertical Threat WR for App State. Dalton's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 55 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 Dalton Stroman'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
35 Receptions665 Rec yards4 Rec TD19.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume19
  • Explosiveness80
  • Consistency69
  • Pass-Down84
Player type
Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.49 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.97 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Lindenwood.

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
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

+1.9701.97Wk 1 vs Charlotte: +0.52 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Lindenwood: +1.97 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Southern Miss: +0.81 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Boise State: +1.14 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Oregon State: +0.47 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Georgia State: +0.25 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Coastal Carolina: +0.06 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Old Dominion: -0.16 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Georgia Southern: +0.23 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs James Madison: +1.11 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Marshall: -0.28 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Arkansas State: +0.93 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsCharlotteW34-11-26.788811.00170.52
2vsLindenwoodW20-13314147.01721.97
3@Southern MissL22-38-7.146516.30270.81
5@Boise StateL14-473.1177.0171.14
6vsOregon StateW27-23-15.924824.00350.47
7@Georgia StateW41-20-24.53196.3170.25
8vsCoastal CarolinaL37-45-15.122412.00160.06
9@Old DominionL21-245.911717.0017-0.16
11vsGeorgia SouthernL23-25-9.411414.00140.23
12@James MadisonL10-5812.337424.70381.11
13vsMarshallW26-24-4.5188.008-0.28
14vsArkansas StateL29-30-8.836421.31370.93
20vsGeorgia SouthernL10-29-9.439632.0042

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.6%
Passing plays
11.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.6%
Passing downs
8.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.51
Passing downs
0.71
Pass / Rush EPA
0.59 / —

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.