#2Ja'Lynn Polk

WR·Washington·2023

Ja'Lynn Polk is a Versatile WR for Washington. Ja'Lynn's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 84 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 Ja'Lynn Polk'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.

2023 Production

Receiving

69 Receptions1159 Rec yards9 Rec TD16.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume29
Explosiveness65
Consistency82
Pass-Down69

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 consistency82th %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 — 0.25 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.94 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Stanford (SP+ -12).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

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	vsBoise State	W56-19	5.9	3	101	33.7	1	50	2.13
2	vsTulsa	W43-10	-13.7	5	81	16.2	0	33	1.47
3	@Michigan State	W41-7	-6.8	5	118	23.6	1	38	1.23
4	vsCalifornia	W59-32	-0.1	8	127	15.9	2	35	1.45
5	@Arizona	W31-24	14.1	5	41	8.2	0	15	0.88
7	vsOregon	W36-33	26.2	6	118	19.7	1	35	1.33
8	vsArizona State	W15-7	-11.3	9	102	11.3	0	21	0.35
9	@Stanford	W42-33	-11.9	5	148	29.6	2	92	2.94
10	@USC	W52-42	9.4	5	52	10.4	1	32	0.74
11	vsUtah	W35-28	8.5	4	55	13.8	0	30	0.57
14	vsOregon	W34-31	26.2	5	57	11.4	0	25	0.39
20	vsMichigan	L13-34	31.3	4	37	9.3	0	15	—
20	vsTexas	W37-31	23.2	5	122	24.4	1	77	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

10.2%

Passing plays

16.3%

Rushing plays

1.4%

Standard downs

9.8%

Passing downs

11.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.93
Passing downs: 1.04
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.95 / 1.02

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