Skip to content
Lynel Billups-Williams
Lynel Billups-Williams

#10Lynel Billups-Williams

Lynel Billups-Williams is a Slot Specialist WR for Miami (OH).

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 Lynel Billups-Williams'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 Receptions51 Rec yards0 Rec TD8.5 Yards/rec
Returns
3 Kick returns78 KR yards0 KR TD18 Punt returns166 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

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

10
Targets
8.5y
Avg depth
6.8y
After catch
80%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.5 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 6.8 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 28y
0
0
short
3
67% · 16y
0
5
100% · 60y
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
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness10
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down84
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.82 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Eastern Michigan (SP+ -15).

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.

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
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Shai WertsGeorgia Southern0.1500.024.2
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8200.82Wk 1 vs Wisconsin: +0.60 EPA/play1Wk 5 vs Lindenwood: -0.05 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Northern Illinois: -0.73 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Akron: -0.34 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.82 EPA/play8Wk 13 vs Buffalo: -0.24 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ball State: -0.18 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@WisconsinL0-17-4.422211.00150.60
2@RutgersL17-451.0
5vsLindenwoodW38-0144.004-0.05
6@Northern IllinoisW25-14-16.7-0.73
7@AkronW20-7-13.92115.507-0.34
8vsEastern MichiganW44-30-14.711414.00140.82
9vsWestern MichiganW26-17-1.4
11@OhioL20-24-4.0
12vsToledoL3-246.0
13@BuffaloW37-20-7.5-0.24
14vsBall StateW45-24-23.0-0.18
15vsWestern MichiganL13-23-1.4

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.3%
Passing plays
7.2%
Rushing plays
1.0%
Standard downs
2.5%
Passing downs
5.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.09
Passing downs
0.11
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.05 / 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.