Skip to content
Gary Bryant Jr.

#2Gary Bryant Jr.

Gary Bryant Jr. is a Versatile WR for Oregon.

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 Gary Bryant Jr.'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
26 Receptions306 Rec yards4 Rec TD11.8 Yards/rec
Returns
14 Punt returns98 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness32
  • Consistency86
  • Pass-Down99
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 consistency86th %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 — 0.12 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.20 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Iowa (SP+ 20).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9
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

+1.2001.20Wk 1 vs Montana State: +0.72 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma State: +0.96 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Oregon State: +0.97 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Penn State: +0.77 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Indiana: +0.90 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Rutgers: +1.12 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Wisconsin: -0.10 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Iowa: +1.20 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMontana StateW59-134317.81140.72
2vsOklahoma StateW69-3-15.134615.31280.96
3@NorthwesternW34-145.8
4vsOregon StateW41-7-15.936521.71490.97
5@Penn StateW30-2418.16559.21250.77
7vsIndianaL20-3032.44379.30180.90
8@RutgersW56-101.023216.00241.12
9vsWisconsinW21-7-4.42115.507-0.10
11@IowaW18-1619.712222.00221.20
20vsIndianaL22-5632.4
20vsTexas TechW23-027.6177.007

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.1%
Passing plays
11.6%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
4.5%
Passing downs
6.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.32
Passing downs
0.61
Pass / Rush EPA
0.45 / 0.19

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.