Skip to content
Tristan Smith

#3Tristan Smith

Tristan Smith is a Versatile WR for Clemson. Tristan's 2025 season produced 7.6 total EPA across 36 plays.

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 Tristan Smith'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
24 Receptions239 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.0 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns0 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume14
  • Explosiveness20
  • Consistency0
  • 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)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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.85 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs SMU (SP+ 13).

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
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8501.85Wk 2 vs Troy: -0.18 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Syracuse: +0.60 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs North Carolina: +0.34 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Boston College: -1.51 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs SMU: +1.85 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Duke: +0.32 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida State: +0.07 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Furman: -0.77 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsTroyW27-16-4.81-2-2.00-2-0.18
4vsSyracuseL21-34-13.122613.00230.60
6@North CarolinaW38-10-6.63299.70190.34
7@Boston CollegeW41-10-8.5294.5011-1.51
8vsSMUL24-3513.435117.01231.85
10vsDukeL45-466.667913.20200.32
11vsFlorida StateW24-107.24369.00140.07
13vsFurmanW45-10111.001-0.77
20vsPenn StateL10-2218.12105.005

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.9%
Passing plays
8.8%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
4.3%
Passing downs
6.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.08
Passing downs
0.67
Pass / Rush EPA
0.27 / -1.95

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.