Skip to content
Dae'Quan Wright

#8Dae'Quan Wright

Dae'Quan Wright is a Versatile TE for Ole Miss. Dae'Quan's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 57 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Dae'Quan Wright'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
39 Receptions635 Rec yards5 Rec TD16.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness62
  • Consistency69
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile TE

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 consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 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 — 0.81 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.45 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Arkansas (SP+ 5).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.4502.45Wk 1 vs Georgia State: +1.01 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Arkansas: +2.45 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Tulane: +1.60 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs LSU: +0.67 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Washington State: +1.15 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Georgia: +0.19 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oklahoma: +0.40 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs South Carolina: +1.13 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs The Citadel: +0.65 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Florida: -0.54 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Mississippi State: -0.21 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsGeorgia StateW63-7-24.547819.51381.01
3vsArkansasW41-355.116464.00642.45
4vsTulaneW45-106.337123.71531.60
5vsLSUW24-1910.346616.50260.67
7vsWashington StateW24-213.848020.01421.15
8@GeorgiaL35-4324.133411.30140.19
9@OklahomaW34-2618.33113.7070.40
10vsSouth CarolinaW30-145.923216.01241.13
11vsThe CitadelW49-011313.00130.65
12vsFloridaW34-243.533612.0016-0.54
14@Mississippi StateW38-194.1242.004-0.21
20vsGeorgiaW39-3424.12189.0010
20vsMiamiL27-3120.736421.3124
20vsTulaneW41-106.346416.0025

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.3%
Passing plays
10.6%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
5.6%
Passing downs
4.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
1.23
Pass / Rush EPA
0.63 / 0.87

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.