Skip to content
Jabre Barber

#1Jabre Barber

WR·Troy·2023

Jabre Barber is a Versatile WR for Troy. Jabre's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 95 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 Jabre Barber'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
74 Receptions994 Rec yards5 Rec TD13.4 Yards/rec
Returns
3 Kick returns58 KR yards0 KR TD16 Punt returns88 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume29
  • Explosiveness43
  • Consistency78
  • Pass-Down77
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 consistency78th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • 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 — 0.38 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.73 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Georgia State (SP+ -7).

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.

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
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

+1.7301.73Wk 1 vs Stephen F. Austin: +1.66 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Kansas State: +1.58 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs James Madison: +1.31 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Western Kentucky: +0.64 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Georgia State: +1.73 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Arkansas State: +0.23 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Army: +0.04 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Texas State: +0.47 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs South Alabama: -0.20 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UL Monroe: +0.73 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Louisiana: +1.41 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Southern Miss: +1.07 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs App State: +0.43 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsStephen F. AustinW48-3022512.51161.66
2@Kansas StateL13-4216.234214.00301.58
3vsJames MadisonL14-1611.868914.81241.31
4vsWestern KentuckyW27-24-2.03186.0080.64
5@Georgia StateW28-7-6.8712117.30371.73
6vsArkansas StateW37-3-6.34225.50120.23
7@ArmyW19-0-4.0413834.50520.04
9@Texas StateW31-13-1.61016016.01470.47
10vsSouth AlabamaW28-105.1273.504-0.20
11@UL MonroeW45-14-21.68739.11220.73
12vsLouisianaW31-240.447418.51431.41
13@Southern MissW35-17-14.468113.50351.07
14vsApp StateW49-233.85377.40110.43
20vsDukeL10-179.41010710.7037

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.2%
Passing plays
19.2%
Rushing plays
0.9%
Standard downs
8.9%
Passing downs
12.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.56
Passing downs
0.73
Pass / Rush EPA
0.59 / 1.42

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.