Skip to content
Egypt Nelson

#8Egypt Nelson

Egypt Nelson is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Western Michigan.

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 Egypt Nelson'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
5 Receptions37 Rec yards1 Rec TD7.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume16
  • Explosiveness3
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Red Zone Weapon WR

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Peak game: 0.64 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Monmouth.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0801.08Wk 1 vs Michigan: -1.08 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Monmouth: +0.64 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@MichiganL12-1312.22-2-1.001-1.08
2vsMonmouthW49-1433913.01230.64

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.5%
Passing plays
14.3%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.7%
Passing downs
7.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
-0.75
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.14 / —

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.