Skip to content
Jared Brown

#14Jared Brown

Jared Brown is a Versatile WR for Coastal Carolina. Jared's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 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 Jared Brown'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

Rushing
252 Rush yards1 Rush TD15 Carries16.8 Yards/carry
Receiving
58 Receptions740 Rec yards4 Rec TD12.8 Yards/rec
Returns
6 Punt returns69 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume29
  • Explosiveness38
  • Consistency75
  • 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 consistency75th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.18 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.60 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Marshall (SP+ -9).

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.

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
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.6001.60Wk 1 vs UCLA: -0.07 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Jacksonville State: +1.48 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Duquesne: +0.68 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Georgia State: -0.39 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Georgia Southern: +1.05 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs App State: +1.31 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Arkansas State: +0.99 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Marshall: +1.60 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Old Dominion: +0.57 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Texas State: +1.14 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Army: +1.10 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs James Madison: -0.22 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@UCLAL13-279.76315.209-0.07
2vsJacksonville StateW30-16-1.679313.31481.48
3vsDuquesneW66-746315.80510.68
4vsGeorgia StateL17-30-6.83217.008-0.39
5@Georgia SouthernL28-38-5.2810613.30371.05
7@App StateW27-243.814040.00401.31
8@Arkansas StateW27-17-6.345714.30430.99
9vsMarshallW34-6-9.0511723.42591.60
10@Old DominionW28-24-10.13248.00140.57
11vsTexas StateW31-23-1.66538.80281.14
12@ArmyL21-28-4.0811614.51591.10
13vsJames MadisonL14-5611.83196.3010-0.22

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.3%
Passing plays
17.3%
Rushing plays
3.5%
Standard downs
9.2%
Passing downs
12.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.50
Passing downs
1.44
Pass / Rush EPA
0.73 / 1.48

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.