#10Jesse Watson

WR·Purdue·2025

Jesse Watson is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Purdue.

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 Jesse Watson'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

8 Receptions80 Rec yards2 Rec TD10.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency17
Volume13
Explosiveness20
Consistency51
Pass-Down68

Player type

Red Zone Weapon WR

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)17th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency51th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.88 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.52 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs USC (SP+ 17).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Amare Jones	Tulane	2020	71	0.180	0.0	12.8
Brandon Chatman	Navy	2025	52	0.230	0.6	12.0
Amare Jones	Tulane	2019	58	0.230	0.8	13.3
Eli Heidenreich	Navy	2025	70	0.220	0.8	15.4
Justin Lynch	Temple	2021	63	0.240	0.3	15.1

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
2	vsSouthern Illinois	W34-17	—	1	5	5.0	0	5	0.73
3	vsUSC	L17-33	16.9	1	20	20.0	0	20	1.52
4	@Notre Dame	L30-56	24.4	2	28	14.0	1	24	0.36
8	@Northwestern	L0-19	5.8	2	14	7.0	0	8	-0.18
11	vsOhio State	L10-34	30.1	1	7	7.0	1	7	0.77
14	vsIndiana	L3-56	32.4	1	6	6.0	0	6	-0.63

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

4.6%

Passing plays

8.3%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

3.6%

Passing downs

6.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.02
Passing downs: 0.13
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.07 / —

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