#11Brian Thomas Jr.

WR·LSU·2023

Brian Thomas Jr. is a Red Zone Weapon WR for LSU. Brian's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 77 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 Brian Thomas Jr.'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

68 Receptions1177 Rec yards17 Rec TD17.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume27
Explosiveness69
Consistency77
Pass-Down92

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 consistency77th %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.
▸10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.36 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 4.07 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Army (SP+ -4).

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	vsFlorida State	L24-45	19.4	7	142	20.3	1	75	1.18
2	vsGrambling	W72-10	—	6	78	13.0	2	26	1.43
3	@Mississippi State	W41-14	0.5	7	60	8.6	0	19	0.68
4	vsArkansas	W34-31	3.5	5	133	26.6	2	49	1.31
5	@Ole Miss	L49-55	18.4	8	124	15.5	3	34	1.79
6	@Missouri	W49-39	19.3	4	66	16.5	1	42	1.07
7	vsAuburn	W48-18	7.6	2	7	3.5	0	4	0.06
8	vsArmy	W62-0	-4.0	3	122	40.7	2	86	4.07
10	@Alabama	L28-42	23.1	3	36	12.0	0	23	0.19
11	vsFlorida	W52-35	6.8	6	150	25.0	2	52	1.37
12	vsGeorgia State	W56-14	-6.8	4	103	25.8	1	70	1.67
13	vsTexas A&M	W42-30	15.6	5	58	11.6	1	23	0.71
20	vsWisconsin	W35-31	9.4	8	98	12.3	2	38	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

9.6%

Passing plays

18.3%

Rushing plays

0.5%

Standard downs

9.6%

Passing downs

9.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 1.25
Passing downs: 1.50
Pass / Rush EPA: 1.33 / 0.75

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).