Skip to content
Malachi Toney

#1Malachi Toney

WR·Miami·2025

Malachi Toney is a Versatile WR for Miami. Malachi's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 148 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 Malachi Toney'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

Rushing
113 Rush yards1 Rush TD23 Carries4.9 Yards/carry
Receiving
109 Receptions1211 Rec yards10 Rec TD11.1 Yards/rec
Returns
23 Punt returns298 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.

14
Targets
13.1y
Avg depth
7.2y
After catch
93%
Catch rate

The ball travels 13.1 yards in the air on an average target 4.1 yards deeper than the median. Another 7.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 39y
0
1
100% · 52y
short
6
100% · 127y
1
100% · 11y
5
80% · 29y
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

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume42
  • Explosiveness27
  • Consistency84
  • Pass-Down43
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 consistency84th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.39 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.27 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Florida (SP+ 4).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Shai WertsGeorgia Southern0.3101.039.7
Zach AbeyNavy0.3700.825.9
Zach AbeyNavy0.3702.146.6
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.2701.27Wk 1 vs Notre Dame: +0.91 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Bethune-Cookman: +0.89 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs South Florida: +0.57 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida: +1.27 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Florida State: +0.71 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Louisville: +0.84 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Stanford: +0.88 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs SMU: -0.02 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Syracuse: +0.49 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs NC State: +0.27 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Virginia Tech: +0.35 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Pittsburgh: +0.37 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNotre DameW27-2424.468213.71280.91
2vsBethune-CookmanW45-368013.30240.89
3vsSouth FloridaW49-1211.666611.00240.57
4vsFloridaW26-73.544010.00161.27
6@Florida StateW28-227.2710715.32440.71
8vsLouisvilleL21-2412.4913515.00610.84
9vsStanfordW42-7-11.855210.40160.88
10@SMUL20-2613.49707.8018-0.02
11vsSyracuseW38-10-13.12126.00110.49
12vsNC StateW41-74.855410.82150.27
13@Virginia TechW34-17-10.11214612.21560.35
14@PittsburghW38-78.4131269.71220.37
20vsOle MissW31-2724.058116.2136
20vsOhio StateW24-1430.15163.207
20vsIndianaL21-2732.41012212.2141
20@Texas A&MW10-320.75224.4112

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
14.7%
Passing plays
26.8%
Rushing plays
4.2%
Standard downs
13.1%
Passing downs
19.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.48
Passing downs
0.44
Pass / Rush EPA
0.51 / 0.18

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.