Skip to content
Braylon Isom

#18Braylon Isom

Braylon Isom is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Miami (OH).

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 Braylon Isom'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
10 Receptions141 Rec yards3 Rec TD14.1 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

6
Targets
13.5y
Avg depth
13.5y
After catch
33%
Catch rate

The ball travels 13.5 yards in the air on an average target 4.5 yards deeper than the median. Another 13.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
3
0% · 0y
2
50% · 22y
1
100% · 18y
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
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness47
  • Consistency81
  • Pass-Down36
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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency81th %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.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.72 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.57 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Western Michigan (SP+ -1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.5702.57Wk 5 vs Lindenwood: +1.05 EPA/play5Wk 8 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.97 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Western Michigan: +2.57 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Ohio: +1.53 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Toledo: -0.05 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Buffalo: +0.71 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ball State: +1.77 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
5vsLindenwoodW38-011212.00121.05
8vsEastern MichiganW44-30-14.722412.00170.97
9vsWestern MichiganW26-17-1.412020.00202.57
11@OhioL20-24-4.023115.51271.53
12vsToledoL3-246.0199.009-0.05
13@BuffaloW37-20-7.511212.00120.71
14vsBall StateW45-24-23.023316.52231.77

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.3%
Passing plays
7.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
4.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.72
Passing downs
0.63
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / —

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.