#9Greg Burrell

RB·Texas State·2025

Greg Burrell is a Explosive Back for Texas State. Greg's 2025 season ranks in the 83th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 97 plays — a above-average rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
Total EPA (value)0.41
Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Greg Burrell'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

Rushing

671 Rush yards3 Rush TD100 Carries6.7 Yards/carry

Receiving

13 Receptions125 Rec yards0 Rec TD9.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency83
Volume36
Explosiveness74
Consistency55
Receiving50

Player type

Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)83th %ile · above avg

Game-to-game consistency55th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Above-average efficiency for the RB position (83th percentile).
▸3 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 — 0.15 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 0.91 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Eastern Michigan (SP+ -15).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Car	Rush Yds	Avg	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	EPA/play
1	vsEastern Michigan	W52-27	-14.7	7	79	11.3	1	2	31	0	0.91
3	@Arizona State	L15-34	3.9	5	19	3.8	0	—	—	—	0.18
4	vsNicholls	W35-3	—	6	39	6.5	1	—	—	—	0.68
6	@Arkansas State	L30-31	-8.8	10	30	3.0	0	2	34	0	-0.41
7	vsTroy	L41-48	-4.8	13	136	10.5	1	—	—	—	0.46
8	@Marshall	L37-40	-4.5	8	27	3.4	0	2	14	0	-0.01
10	vsJames Madison	L20-52	12.3	10	29	2.9	0	1	1	0	-0.12
11	@Louisiana	L39-42	-10.1	3	15	5.0	0	—	—	—	0.11
12	@Southern Miss	W41-14	-7.1	11	95	8.6	0	1	7	0	0.20
13	vsUL Monroe	W31-14	-21.6	8	61	7.6	0	1	16	0	0.38
14	vsSouth Alabama	W49-26	-12.7	10	60	6.0	0	4	22	0	0.19
20	vsRice	W41-10	-14.8	9	81	9.0	0	—	—	—	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

12.7%

Passing plays

3.5%

Rushing plays

19.7%

Standard downs

13.9%

Passing downs

9.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.23
Passing downs: 0.46
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.57 / 0.23

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