Skip to content
Malik Washington
Malik Washington

#4Malik Washington

Malik Washington is a Versatile WR for Virginia. Malik's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 123 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 Malik Washington'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
110 Receptions1426 Rec yards9 Rec TD13.0 Yards/rec
Returns
13 Kick returns257 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume46
  • Explosiveness40
  • Consistency79
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency79th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • 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 — 0.21 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.23 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs James Madison (SP+ 12).

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.2302.23Wk 1 vs Tennessee: -0.27 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs James Madison: +2.23 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Maryland: +1.28 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs NC State: +1.22 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Boston College: +0.72 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs William & Mary: +0.62 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs North Carolina: +0.69 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Miami: +1.16 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Georgia Tech: +0.23 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Louisville: +0.79 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Duke: +1.26 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Virginia Tech: +0.40 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsTennesseeL13-4916.24297.3017-0.27
2vsJames MadisonL35-3611.8511923.81632.23
3@MarylandL14-4211.0914115.70491.28
4vsNC StateL21-247.41017017.02591.22
5@Boston CollegeL24-27-5.999710.81230.72
6vsWilliam & MaryW27-13711216.01420.62
8@North CarolinaW31-277.4121159.61300.69
9@MiamiL26-299.61215212.70641.16
10vsGeorgia TechL17-450.3111099.90250.23
11@LouisvilleL24-318.0915517.21480.79
12vsDukeW30-279.4811214.02341.26
13vsVirginia TechL17-555.8141158.20310.40

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
16.2%
Passing plays
31.8%
Rushing plays
0.5%
Standard downs
14.1%
Passing downs
20.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.53
Passing downs
1.22
Pass / Rush EPA
0.83 / -0.94

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.