Skip to content
Wayshawn Parker

#1Wayshawn Parker

RB·Utah·2025

Wayshawn Parker is a Explosive Back for Utah. Wayshawn's 2025 season ranks in the 83th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 143 plays — a above-average rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Wayshawn Parker'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

Rushing
981 Rush yards6 Rush TD149 Carries6.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
13 Receptions185 Rec yards3 Rec TD14.2 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

8
Targets
5.0y
Avg depth
6.0y
After catch
100%
Catch rate

The ball travels 5.0 yards in the air on an average target 3.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 6.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
100% · 36y
short
3
100% · 24y
0
4
100% · 28y
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 RB peers

  • Efficiency83
  • Volume48
  • Explosiveness72
  • Consistency72
  • Receiving44
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)83th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency72th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the RB position (83th percentile).
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.86 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Cal Poly.

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 · RB · 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
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8600.86Wk 1 vs UCLA: +0.27 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Cal Poly: +0.86 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Wyoming: +0.64 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Texas Tech: -0.10 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs West Virginia: +0.52 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Arizona State: +0.03 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs BYU: -0.13 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Colorado: +0.46 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Cincinnati: +0.17 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Baylor: +0.52 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kansas State: +0.29 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Kansas: +0.25 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@UCLAW43-10-8.711625.610.27
2vsCal PolyW63-96508.3115210.86
3@WyomingW31-6-11.310808.002900.64
4vsTexas TechL10-3427.66223.71190-0.10
5@West VirginiaW48-14-6.89667.3022110.52
7vsArizona StateW42-103.910555.500.03
8@BYUL21-2415.98232.901-10-0.13
9vsColoradoW53-7-8.31014514.510.46
10vsCincinnatiW45-144.5171046.110.17
12@BaylorW55-281.4151298.611510.52
13vsKansas StateW51-477.0191005.301500.29
14@KansasW31-214.112957.9013200.25
20vsNebraskaW44-226.216503.103530

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
16.9%
Passing plays
4.1%
Rushing plays
26.0%
Standard downs
19.2%
Passing downs
10.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.23
Passing downs
0.43
Pass / Rush EPA
1.00 / 0.18

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.