Skip to content
Tyrell Henry

#0Tyrell Henry

Tyrell Henry is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Wisconsin.

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 Tyrell Henry'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
5 Receptions29 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.8 Yards/rec
Returns
10 Punt returns87 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
3.7y
Avg depth
16.4y
After catch
50%
Catch rate

The ball travels 3.7 yards in the air on an average target 5.2 yards shorter than the median. Another 16.4 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 51y
1
0% · 0y
0
short
6
67% · 47y
2
0% · 0y
6
50% · 35y
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
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Red Zone Weapon WR

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.46 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.42 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Iowa (SP+ 20).

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 JonesTulane0.2300.813.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4201.42Wk 1 vs Miami (OH): +0.23 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Middle Tennessee: +1.30 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Alabama: -0.07 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Maryland: -0.30 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Michigan: +0.11 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa: +1.42 EPA/play7Wk 12 vs Indiana: -0.80 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Illinois: -0.22 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Minnesota: -1.25 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMiami (OH)W17-0-3.411010.00100.23
2vsMiddle TennesseeW42-10-16.02-2-1.0131.30
3@AlabamaL14-3814.8-0.07
4vsMarylandL10-270.6155.005-0.30
6@MichiganL10-2412.40.11
7vsIowaL0-3719.711616.00161.42
11vsWashingtonW13-1018.4
12@IndianaL7-3132.4-0.80
13vsIllinoisW27-1012.9-0.22
14@MinnesotaL7-171.5-1.25

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.6%
Passing plays
2.1%
Rushing plays
3.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
1.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.39
Passing downs
-0.32
Pass / Rush EPA
0.95 / -0.16

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.