#13Chrishon Mccray

WR·Kent State·2024

Chrishon Mccray is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Kent State. Chrishon's 2024 season produced 48.5 total EPA across 34 plays.

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 Chrishon Mccray'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.

2024 Production

Receiving

40 Receptions705 Rec yards9 Rec TD17.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume25
Explosiveness71
Consistency79
Pass-Down100

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 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.
▸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 — 0.73 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.54 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Ball State (SP+ -20).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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	@Pittsburgh	L24-55	4.9	4	49	12.3	1	29	0.93
2	vsSt. Francis (PA)	L17-23	—	5	45	9.0	1	11	0.96
3	@Tennessee	L0-71	22.0	3	27	9.0	0	9	1.21
5	vsEastern Michigan	L33-52	-13.3	5	188	37.6	2	68	1.64
7	vsBall State	L35-37	-19.8	8	213	26.6	3	63	2.54
8	@Bowling Green	L6-27	-1.8	3	21	7.0	0	16	0.32
9	@Western Michigan	L21-52	-10.2	3	23	7.7	0	11	0.51
11	vsOhio	L0-41	2.3	3	28	9.3	0	18	-0.08
12	@Miami (OH)	L7-34	1.3	3	18	6.0	1	11	—
13	vsAkron	L17-38	-17.9	3	93	31.0	1	45	2.14

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

8.7%

Passing plays

17.1%

Rushing plays

0.4%

Standard downs

7.2%

Passing downs

10.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 1.01
Passing downs: 1.90
Pass / Rush EPA: 1.43 / —

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