Skip to content
Braden Smith

Braden Smith

Braden Smith is a Versatile WR for Cincinnati. Braden's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 52 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

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 Braden 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.

2023 Production

Receiving
43 Receptions557 Rec yards4 Rec TD13.0 Yards/rec
Returns
3 Kick returns21 KR yards0 KR TD13 Punt returns36 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness40
  • Consistency70
  • 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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency70th %ile · average
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.69 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.38 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Miami (OH) (SP+ 3).

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.

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.3803.38Wk 1 vs Eastern Kentucky: +1.07 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: +1.22 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Miami (OH): +3.38 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Oklahoma: +0.13 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs BYU: +1.46 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Iowa State: +0.29 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Baylor: +0.56 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oklahoma State: -0.01 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UCF: +1.58 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Houston: +1.00 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs West Virginia: -0.01 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kansas: +0.29 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsEastern KentuckyW66-1347218.01481.07
2@PittsburghW27-21-7.355911.81211.22
3vsMiami (OH)L24-312.813737.00373.38
4vsOklahomaL6-2015.033010.00140.13
5@BYUL27-35-3.347218.01311.46
7vsIowa StateL10-307.55377.40190.29
8vsBaylorL29-32-8.33248.00170.56
9@Oklahoma StateL13-456.722412.0013-0.01
10vsUCFL26-283.4611419.01371.58
11@HoustonW24-14-7.856913.80191.00
12@West VirginiaL21-427.5242.005-0.01
13vsKansasL16-499.93155.0080.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.4%
Passing plays
14.3%
Rushing plays
0.4%
Standard downs
6.2%
Passing downs
6.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.70
Passing downs
1.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.94 / -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.
Braden Smith Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Cincinnati · Gridpex