Skip to content
Tyler King

Tyler King

Tyler King is a Versatile WR for New Mexico State. Tyler's 2025 season produced 17.1 total EPA across 49 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 Tyler King'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
41 Receptions588 Rec yards3 Rec TD14.3 Yards/rec
Returns
10 Kick returns195 KR yards0 KR TD7 Punt returns60 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.

16
Targets
19.9y
Avg depth
1.4y
After catch
50%
Catch rate

The ball travels 19.9 yards in the air on an average target 10.9 yards deeper than the median. Another 1.4 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
2
50% · 46y
6
17% · 42y
short
1
100% · 1y
3
67% · 23y
4
75% · 20y
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
  • Volume27
  • Explosiveness49
  • Consistency64
  • Pass-Down11
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 consistency64th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.33 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.66 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs UTEP (SP+ -18).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Nick NashSan José State0.3100.514.0

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6600.66Wk 6 vs Sam Houston: +0.43 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Liberty: +0.17 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Missouri State: -0.24 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Western Kentucky: +0.04 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kennesaw State: +0.59 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Tennessee: -0.09 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs UTEP: +0.66 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.55 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
6vsSam HoustonW37-10-27.8613222.00540.43
8@LibertyL27-30-9.056813.60270.17
9vsMissouri StateL17-24-10.722211.0017-0.24
10@Western KentuckyL16-351.62136.5070.04
11vsKennesaw StateL21-24-5.444912.30320.59
12@TennesseeL9-4215.077711.0041-0.09
13@UTEPW34-31-17.55499.81210.66
14vsMiddle TennesseeL24-31-16.01017817.82640.55

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.6%
Passing plays
14.6%
Rushing plays
3.0%
Standard downs
10.5%
Passing downs
7.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.41
Passing downs
0.18
Pass / Rush EPA
0.49 / -0.52

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.