Skip to content
Christian Leary

#1Christian Leary

Christian Leary is a Slot Specialist WR for Western Michigan.

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 Christian Leary'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

Rushing
46 Rush yards0 Rush TD10 Carries4.6 Yards/carry
Receiving
15 Receptions115 Rec yards0 Rec TD7.7 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns32 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness4
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)67th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • 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 — 0.13 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.39 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Toledo (SP+ 6).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.3901.39Wk 1 vs Michigan State: -0.60 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs North Texas: -0.20 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Illinois: -0.49 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Toledo: +1.39 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Rhode Island: +0.23 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Massachusetts: +0.55 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Ball State: +0.63 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Miami (OH): -0.22 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Central Michigan: +0.34 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Ohio: +0.46 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Northern Illinois: +0.57 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.09 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Miami (OH): -0.74 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Michigan StateL6-23-3.4-0.60
2vsNorth TexasL30-3313.8-0.20
3@IllinoisL0-3812.9155.005-0.49
4vsToledoW14-136.022311.50151.39
5vsRhode IslandW47-142178.50170.23
6@MassachusettsW21-3-36.63186.00120.55
7vsBall StateW42-0-23.02136.50100.63
9@Miami (OH)L17-26-3.4144.004-0.22
10vsCentral MichiganW24-21-8.82189.00100.34
12vsOhioW17-13-4.00.46
13@Northern IllinoisW35-19-16.72178.50100.57
14@Eastern MichiganW31-21-14.70.09
15vsMiami (OH)W23-13-3.4-0.74
20vsKennesaw StateW41-6-5.4

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.1%
Passing plays
5.6%
Rushing plays
1.9%
Standard downs
2.6%
Passing downs
4.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.04
Passing downs
0.53
Pass / Rush EPA
0.36 / -0.05

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.