Skip to content
Eli Wood

#7Eli Wood

Eli Wood is a Slot Specialist WR for Utah 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 Eli Wood'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
12 Receptions143 Rec yards2 Rec TD11.9 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

18
Targets
8.6y
Avg depth
2.9y
After catch
61%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.6 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 2.9 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
5
80% · 47y
4
50% · 35y
9
56% · 46y
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 · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume37
  • Explosiveness33
  • Consistency50
  • 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)100th %ile · elite
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.89 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Idaho State.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8900.89Wk 1 vs Idaho State: +0.89 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Washington: +0.78 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsIdaho StateL17-2969015.01210.89
2@WashingtonL14-1612.06538.81140.78

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.9%
Passing plays
25.0%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.3%
Passing downs
26.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.23
Passing downs
1.23
Pass / Rush EPA
0.84 / —

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.