Skip to content
Cyrus Allen

#4Cyrus Allen

Cyrus Allen is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Cincinnati. Cyrus's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 76 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 Cyrus Allen'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
50 Receptions660 Rec yards12 Rec TD13.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume28
  • Explosiveness41
  • Consistency72
  • Pass-Down80
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 consistency72th %ile · average
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.
  • 8 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 0.26 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.09 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Utah (SP+ 22).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.0902.09Wk 1 vs Nebraska: +0.35 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Bowling Green: +0.73 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Northwestern State: +1.07 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Kansas: +0.87 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Iowa State: +0.52 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs UCF: -0.51 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Oklahoma State: +1.23 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Baylor: +0.81 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Utah: +2.09 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Arizona: +0.79 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs BYU: -0.01 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs TCU: +0.14 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNebraskaL17-206.25418.20140.35
2vsBowling GreenW34-20-12.634515.02440.73
3vsNorthwestern StateW70-045914.81291.07
5@KansasW37-344.11112811.62370.87
6vsIowa StateW38-309.93227.30100.52
7vsUCFW20-11-1.21-1-1.000-0.51
8@Oklahoma StateW49-17-15.133712.32261.23
9vsBaylorW41-201.433612.01190.81
10@UtahL14-4522.2213366.51882.09
12vsArizonaL24-3012.055811.60370.79
13vsBYUL14-2615.955110.2127-0.01
14@TCUL23-458.334214.01350.14
20vsNavyL13-356.2294.515

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.8%
Passing plays
18.5%
Rushing plays
2.3%
Standard downs
8.3%
Passing downs
13.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.57
Passing downs
0.74
Pass / Rush EPA
0.79 / -0.49

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.