Skip to content
Derwin Burgess Jr.
Derwin Burgess Jr.

#2Derwin Burgess Jr.

Derwin Burgess Jr. is a Versatile WR for Georgia Southern. Derwin's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 61 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 Derwin Burgess Jr.'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.

2024 Production

Receiving
59 Receptions659 Rec yards3 Rec TD11.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume20
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency84
  • 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 consistency84th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 10 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 — 0.39 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.74 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs James Madison (SP+ 8).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7401.74Wk 1 vs Boise State: +1.17 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nevada: +1.03 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs South Carolina State: +0.78 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Ole Miss: +1.52 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Georgia State: +1.04 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Marshall: +0.85 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs James Madison: +1.74 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Old Dominion: +1.54 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs South Alabama: +0.07 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Troy: +1.03 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Coastal Carolina: +0.68 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs App State: +0.04 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBoise StateL45-5610.149323.30481.17
2@NevadaW20-17-15.255210.40161.03
3vsSouth Carolina StateW42-1412727.00270.78
4@Ole MissL13-5227.955310.61131.52
5@Georgia StateW38-21-17.94205.0091.04
7vsMarshallW24-233.178412.01340.85
8vsJames MadisonW28-147.555210.41151.74
9@Old DominionL19-47-6.045914.80301.54
10@South AlabamaW34-302.84215.3080.07
12vsTroyL20-28-6.622512.50141.03
13@Coastal CarolinaW26-6-6.989812.30280.68
14vsApp StateW29-20-8.14194.8070.04
20vsSam HoustonL26-31-6.96569.3017

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.1%
Passing plays
13.2%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
7.1%
Passing downs
6.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.81
Passing downs
1.11
Pass / Rush EPA
0.93 / -0.19

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.