Skip to content
Jaylin Lane

#83Jaylin Lane

Jaylin Lane is a Versatile WR for Virginia Tech. Jaylin's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 60 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 Jaylin Lane'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.

2024 Production

Rushing
116 Rush yards2 Rush TD18 Carries6.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
38 Receptions466 Rec yards2 Rec TD12.3 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns21 KR yards0 KR TD24 Punt returns254 PR yards1 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume22
  • Explosiveness35
  • Consistency81
  • 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 consistency81th %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.
  • 10 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 — 0.53 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.57 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Old Dominion (SP+ -6).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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

+1.5701.57Wk 1 vs Vanderbilt: +0.79 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Marshall: +0.61 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Old Dominion: +1.57 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Rutgers: +0.99 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Miami: +0.92 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Stanford: +1.01 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Boston College: +0.59 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Georgia Tech: +0.67 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Syracuse: +0.83 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Clemson: -0.28 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Duke: +0.02 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Virginia: +0.92 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@VanderbiltL27-344.946215.50260.79
2vsMarshallW31-143.144110.30200.61
3@Old DominionW37-17-6.0710615.11461.57
4vsRutgersL23-266.423819.00340.99
5@MiamiL34-3821.644912.30210.92
6@StanfordW31-7-8.23299.70131.01
8vsBoston CollegeW42-211.23227.30100.59
9vsGeorgia TechW21-61.9263.0070.67
10@SyracuseL31-385.50.83
11vsClemsonL14-2413.32126.006-0.28
13@DukeL28-315.63103.3060.02
14vsVirginiaW37-17-5.149122.81660.92

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.8%
Passing plays
12.5%
Rushing plays
4.2%
Standard downs
8.3%
Passing downs
7.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.58
Passing downs
1.13
Pass / Rush EPA
0.92 / 0.35

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.