Skip to content
DT Sheffield

#0DT Sheffield

DT Sheffield is a Slot Specialist WR for Rutgers. DT's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 73 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 DT Sheffield'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
44 Receptions577 Rec yards5 Rec TD13.1 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Punt returns12 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume24
  • Explosiveness41
  • Consistency78
  • Pass-Down95
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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency78th %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 — 0.41 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.13 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Ohio (SP+ -4).

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
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.1301.13Wk 1 vs Ohio: +1.13 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Miami (OH): +0.71 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Norfolk State: +0.62 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Iowa: +0.36 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Minnesota: +0.67 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Washington: +1.02 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Oregon: -0.24 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Purdue: +0.07 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Illinois: +0.12 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Maryland: +0.89 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Ohio State: +0.30 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Penn State: +0.93 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsOhioW34-31-4.048521.31541.13
2vsMiami (OH)W45-17-3.45377.41110.71
3vsNorfolk StateW60-1037926.30510.62
4vsIowaL28-3819.735117.00400.36
5@MinnesotaL28-311.557414.81290.67
7@WashingtonL19-3818.466811.30411.02
8vsOregonL10-5625.93268.7011-0.24
9@PurdueW27-24-6.13248.00110.07
10@IllinoisL13-3512.94328.0090.12
11vsMarylandW35-200.645614.01310.89
13@Ohio StateL9-4230.12189.00100.30
14vsPenn StateL36-4018.122713.51210.93

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.5%
Passing plays
17.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
7.0%
Passing downs
12.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
0.73
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / —

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.