#14Casey Washington

WR·Illinois·2023

Casey Washington is a Versatile WR for Illinois. Casey's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 60 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 Casey Washington'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

49 Receptions670 Rec yards4 Rec TD13.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume21
Explosiveness44
Consistency79
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 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.
▸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 0.77 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.87 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Minnesota (SP+ 0).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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	vsToledo	W30-28	3.7	4	54	13.5	0	33	0.86
2	@Kansas	L23-34	9.9	3	14	4.7	0	10	-0.12
3	vsPenn State	L13-30	23.5	2	22	11.0	0	13	0.50
4	vsFlorida Atlantic	W23-17	-9.4	2	13	6.5	0	11	0.51
5	@Purdue	L19-44	-7.3	2	19	9.5	0	14	0.59
6	vsNebraska	L7-20	0.3	4	55	13.8	0	20	0.59
7	@Maryland	W27-24	11.0	4	60	15.0	0	29	1.58
8	vsWisconsin	L21-25	9.4	4	34	8.5	0	13	0.31
10	@Minnesota	W27-26	0.4	2	24	12.0	0	18	1.87
11	vsIndiana	W48-45	-7.4	5	99	19.8	1	23	1.27
12	@Iowa	L13-15	5.8	8	58	7.3	0	13	0.70
13	vsNorthwestern	L43-45	-1.3	9	218	24.2	3	80	1.82

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

7.5%

Passing plays

13.9%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

6.8%

Passing downs

9.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.79
Passing downs: 1.31
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.97 / —

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