Skip to content
Griffin Wilde

#17Griffin Wilde

Griffin Wilde is a Versatile WR for Northwestern. Griffin's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 104 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 Griffin Wilde'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
71 Receptions880 Rec yards8 Rec TD12.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume36
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency79
  • Pass-Down92
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 consistency79th %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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.76 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.49 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs UCLA (SP+ -9).

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4901.49Wk 1 vs Tulane: +0.83 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Illinois: +0.69 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oregon: +1.12 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs UCLA: +1.49 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UL Monroe: +1.28 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Penn State: +0.95 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Purdue: +0.58 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Nebraska: +0.26 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs USC: +0.17 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Michigan: +0.23 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Minnesota: +1.03 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Illinois: -0.17 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@TulaneL3-236.366410.70220.83
2vsWestern IllinoisW42-759418.80460.69
3vsOregonL14-3425.945513.80311.12
5vsUCLAW17-14-8.779814.01251.49
6vsUL MonroeW42-7-21.636421.31491.28
7@Penn StateW22-2118.179413.41290.95
8vsPurdueW19-0-6.144711.81180.58
9@NebraskaL21-286.235418.00370.26
11@USCL17-3816.94235.81160.17
12vsMichiganL22-2412.425125.50320.23
13vsMinnesotaW38-351.51111110.11171.03
14@IllinoisL13-2012.95285.6012-0.17
20vsCentral MichiganW34-7-8.810979.7223

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.6%
Passing plays
27.1%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
11.0%
Passing downs
16.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.58
Passing downs
0.83
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / 0.08

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.