Skip to content
Tim Burns Jr.

#3Tim Burns Jr.

Tim Burns Jr. is a Vertical Threat WR for Sam Houston.

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 Tim Burns Jr.'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
12 Receptions228 Rec yards1 Rec TD19.0 Yards/rec
Returns
12 Kick returns306 KR yards1 KR TD2 Punt returns12 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.

7
Targets
11.6y
Avg depth
7.0y
After catch
57%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.6 yards in the air on an average target 2.6 yards deeper than the median. Another 7.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
0
0
short
4
75% · 48y
1
100% · 15y
1
0% · 0y
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

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness80
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)67th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 1.04 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.46 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -16).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.4602.46Wk 1 vs UNLV: +1.38 EPA/play1Wk 6 vs New Mexico State: +2.46 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Jacksonville State: -0.92 EPA/play7Wk 10 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.36 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Oregon State: -0.46 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Delaware: -0.60 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.50 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Florida International: +0.58 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsUNLVL21-384.315959.01591.38
2@Hawai'iL20-371.7
6@New Mexico StateL10-37-15.512828.00282.46
7vsJacksonville StateL27-29-6.711313.0013-0.92
8vsUTEPL17-35-17.534515.0016
10@Louisiana TechL14-55-1.3-0.36
11@Oregon StateW21-17-15.9188.008-0.46
12vsDelawareW26-23-10.9166.006-0.60
13@Middle TennesseeL17-31-16.012222.00220.50
14vsFlorida InternationalL16-56-10.534715.70280.58

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.1%
Passing plays
8.4%
Rushing plays
0.9%
Standard downs
4.2%
Passing downs
6.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
-0.20
Pass / Rush EPA
0.37 / -1.98

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.