Skip to content
Da'Realyst Clark
Da'Realyst Clark

#8Da'Realyst Clark

Da'Realyst Clark is a Vertical Threat WR for Kent State.

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 Da'Realyst Clark'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
3 Receptions108 Rec yards1 Rec TD36.0 Yards/rec
Returns
16 Kick returns452 KR yards2 KR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

9
Targets
13.1y
Avg depth
1.9y
After catch
78%
Catch rate

The ball travels 13.1 yards in the air on an average target 4.2 yards deeper than the median. Another 1.9 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
1
100% · 40y
2
50% · 33y
short
1
100% · 2y
3
67% · -3y
2
100% · 15y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume10
  • Explosiveness100
  • Consistency63
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency63th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 3 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 — 1.28 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.98 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -37).

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
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

+3.9803.98Wk 2 vs Texas Tech: +0.22 EPA/play2Wk 7 vs Massachusetts: +3.98 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Bowling Green: -0.06 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Ball State: +1.15 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Akron: +2.48 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Central Michigan: -0.27 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMerrimackW21-17
2@Texas TechL14-6227.6177.0070.22
3vsBuffaloL28-31-7.5
6@OklahomaL0-4418.3
7vsMassachusettsW42-6-36.63.98
8@ToledoL10-456.0
9vsBowling GreenW24-21-12.6-0.06
11@Ball StateL13-17-23.011212.00121.15
12@AkronW42-35-13.918989.01892.48
13vsCentral MichiganL16-28-8.8-0.27

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.4%
Passing plays
5.1%
Rushing plays
2.2%
Standard downs
3.1%
Passing downs
4.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.35
Passing downs
1.36
Pass / Rush EPA
1.57 / -0.82

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.