Skip to content
Brock Rechsteiner
Brock Rechsteiner

#3Brock Rechsteiner

Brock Rechsteiner is a Versatile WR for Jacksonville State. Brock's 2025 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 Brock Rechsteiner'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
36 Receptions383 Rec yards5 Rec TD10.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness24
  • Consistency7
  • 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 consistency7th %ile · below 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 variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 5 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 — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.47 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Georgia Southern (SP+ -9).

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 · 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
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.3400.722.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4701.47Wk 1 vs UCF: -0.21 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Liberty: -1.21 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia Southern: +1.47 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Murray State: +0.88 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Southern Miss: +0.45 EPA/play5Wk 8 vs Delaware: +1.15 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.44 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs UTEP: +0.09 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Kennesaw State: -0.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Florida International: -0.45 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@UCFL10-17-1.233411.3020-0.21
2vsLibertyW34-24-9.01-1-1.000-1.21
3@Georgia SouthernL34-41-9.446917.31561.47
4vsMurray StateW45-1058917.81350.88
5@Southern MissL25-42-7.14246.0190.45
8vsDelawareW38-25-10.934816.01231.15
10@Middle TennesseeW24-21-16.05428.40140.44
11@UTEPW30-27-17.53268.70100.09
12vsKennesaw StateW35-26-5.4393.008-0.15
13@Florida InternationalL21-27-10.52168.0010-0.45
20vsTroyW17-13-4.83279.0122

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.4%
Passing plays
16.9%
Rushing plays
0.4%
Standard downs
5.8%
Passing downs
7.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.62
Pass / Rush EPA
0.35 / 0.83

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.