Skip to content
Andrew Erickson
Andrew Erickson

#11Andrew Erickson

WR·New Mexico·2023

Andrew Erickson is a Slot Specialist WR for New Mexico.

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 Andrew Erickson'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
20 Receptions263 Rec yards1 Rec TD13.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness41
  • Consistency79
  • Pass-Down62
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency79th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • ▸Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • ▸7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.75 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.29 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -18).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.290−2.29Wk 1 vs Texas A&M: +0.02 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Tennessee Tech: +1.48 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico State: +2.22 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Massachusetts: +2.29 EPA/play4Wk 8 vs Hawai'i: +1.05 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Nevada: +1.45 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UNLV: +0.85 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Fresno State: +0.07 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Utah State: +0.65 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Texas A&ML10-5215.62126.0070.02
2vsTennessee TechW56-10—3299.70121.48
3vsNew Mexico StateL17-27-1.833812.71262.22
4@MassachusettsW34-31-17.526130.50522.29
8vsHawai'iW42-21-16.423115.50251.05
9@NevadaL24-34-22.033010.00181.45
10vsUNLVL14-561.411515.00150.85
12@Fresno StateW25-172.5155.0050.07
13vsUtah StateL41-44-10.934214.00170.65

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.2%
Passing plays
9.2%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.7%
Passing downs
7.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.04
Passing downs
1.11
Pass / Rush EPA
1.08 / —

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.