Skip to content
Jonathan Brady

#0Jonathan Brady

Jonathan Brady is a Versatile WR for New Mexico State. Jonathan's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 51 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 Jonathan Brady'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
38 Receptions624 Rec yards4 Rec TD16.4 Yards/rec
Returns
6 Kick returns117 KR yards0 KR TD11 Punt returns93 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume16
  • Explosiveness63
  • Consistency69
  • Pass-Down0
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 consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.88 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs New Mexico (SP+ -17).

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

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.8802.88Wk 1 vs Western Illinois: +1.48 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Liberty: -0.61 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico: +2.88 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Hawai'i: +0.67 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Florida International: +0.46 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Sam Houston: +1.22 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UTEP: +0.46 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.40 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Middle Tennessee: +1.82 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Western Kentucky: +0.67 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Auburn: -0.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Jacksonville State: +0.35 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Liberty: +1.97 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0vsMassachusettsL30-41-17.524824.0024
1vsWestern IllinoisW58-21410225.51801.48
2@LibertyL17-338.01-7-7.000-0.61
3@New MexicoW27-17-16.5310936.32752.88
4@Hawai'iL17-20-16.40.67
6vsFlorida InternationalW34-17-21.23217.00120.46
7vsSam HoustonW27-13-13.856513.00251.22
8@UTEPW28-7-16.23175.70120.46
9@Louisiana TechW27-24-12.923316.50260.40
10vsMiddle TennesseeW13-7-9.537023.30321.82
11@Western KentuckyW38-29-2.033110.30130.67
12@AuburnW31-107.6284.004-0.15
13vsJacksonville StateW20-17-1.622110.50150.35
14@LibertyL35-498.049523.81751.97
20vsFresno StateL10-372.511111.0011

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.6%
Passing plays
10.6%
Rushing plays
1.6%
Standard downs
5.5%
Passing downs
5.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.01
Passing downs
0.66
Pass / Rush EPA
1.06 / 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.