Skip to content
La'Don Bryant

#0La'Don Bryant

La'Don Bryant is a Versatile WR for Northern Illinois.

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 La'Don Bryant'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
6 Receptions40 Rec yards0 Rec TD6.7 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

7
Targets
11.7y
Avg depth
3.0y
After catch
86%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.7 yards in the air on an average target 2.8 yards deeper than the median. Another 3.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 36y
0
0
short
3
100% · 23y
2
50% · 20y
1
100% · 10y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency3
  • 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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency3th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.48 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Maryland (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+1.4801.48Wk 2 vs Maryland: +1.48 EPA/play2Wk 6 vs Miami (OH): -0.32 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.32 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Ball State: -0.34 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Toledo: -0.10 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2@MarylandL9-200.6188.0081.48
6vsMiami (OH)L14-25-3.42115.506-0.32
7@Eastern MichiganL10-16-14.7166.0060.32
9vsBall StateW21-7-23.0122.002-0.34
11@ToledoL3-426.011313.0013-0.10

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.9%
Passing plays
8.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.4%
Passing downs
3.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.37
Passing downs
-0.21
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.30 / —

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.