#3Erik Brooks

WR·Fresno State·2023

Erik Brooks is a Versatile WR for Fresno State. Erik's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 62 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 Erik Brooks'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.

2023 Production

Receiving

59 Receptions771 Rec yards5 Rec TD13.1 Yards/rec

Returns

1 Kick returns35 KR yards0 KR TD19 Punt returns174 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume23
Explosiveness40
Consistency77
Pass-Down100

Player type

Versatile WR

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 consistency77th %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.
▸Peak game: 2.43 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs San José State (SP+ -3).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	@Purdue	W39-35	-7.3	9	170	18.9	2	49	1.96
2	vsEastern Washington	W34-31	—	8	95	11.9	1	29	1.19
3	@Arizona State	W29-0	-11.3	11	104	9.5	0	16	0.34
4	vsKent State	W53-10	-26.3	4	79	19.8	1	40	1.58
5	vsNevada	W27-9	-22.0	2	37	18.5	0	23	1.24
6	@Wyoming	L19-24	-3.6	2	9	4.5	0	5	0.02
7	@Utah State	W37-32	-10.9	3	57	19.0	0	23	1.43
9	vsUNLV	W31-24	1.4	2	14	7.0	1	10	1.57
10	vsBoise State	W37-30	5.9	—	—	—	—	—	—
11	@San José State	L18-42	-3.4	3	59	19.7	0	35	2.43
12	vsNew Mexico	L17-25	-16.5	5	17	3.4	0	8	-0.27
13	@San Diego State	L18-33	-10.3	5	53	10.6	0	15	0.33
20	vsNew Mexico State	W37-10	-1.8	5	77	15.4	0	35	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

8.1%

Passing plays

13.3%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

8.1%

Passing downs

8.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.83
Passing downs: 1.24
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.96 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).