#14Jeff Foreman

WR·Arkansas State·2023

Jeff Foreman is a Vertical Threat WR for Arkansas State. Jeff's 2023 season produced 44.2 total EPA across 32 plays.

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 Jeff Foreman'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

28 Receptions540 Rec yards4 Rec TD19.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume14
Explosiveness82
Consistency87
Pass-Down100

Player type

Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency87th %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 — 1.42 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 3.81 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Stony Brook.

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.

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
3	vsStony Brook	W31-7	—	1	42	42.0	0	42	3.81
4	vsSouthern Miss	W44-37	-14.4	3	77	25.7	1	37	2.15
5	@Massachusetts	W52-28	-17.5	2	65	32.5	2	39	3.15
6	@Troy	L3-37	9.8	4	76	19.0	0	38	2.27
8	vsCoastal Carolina	L17-27	-1.2	2	28	14.0	0	19	2.11
9	@UL Monroe	W34-24	-21.6	1	20	20.0	0	20	2.93
10	vsLouisiana	W37-17	0.4	3	26	8.7	0	16	1.09
11	@South Alabama	L14-21	5.1	3	61	20.3	1	46	1.10
12	vsTexas State	W77-31	-1.6	1	12	12.0	0	12	1.99
13	@Marshall	L21-35	-9.0	4	81	20.3	0	40	0.94
20	vsNorthern Illinois	L19-21	-7.5	4	52	13.0	0	20	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

5.0%

Passing plays

10.8%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

4.7%

Passing downs

5.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 1.14
Passing downs: 2.00
Pass / Rush EPA: 1.38 / —

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