#8Joseph Williams

WR·Tulsa·2024

Joseph Williams is a Vertical Threat WR for Tulsa.

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 Joseph Williams'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

Receiving

30 Receptions588 Rec yards5 Rec TD19.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume22
Explosiveness84
Consistency83
Pass-Down100

Player type

Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency83th %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.
▸6 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 — 0.41 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.04 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs UAB (SP+ -11).

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.

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
5	@North Texas	L20-52	-4.5	3	51	17.0	0	23	1.95
8	@Temple	L10-20	-20.3	2	21	10.5	0	11	0.78
9	vsUTSA	W46-45	2.2	4	55	13.8	0	27	1.04
10	@UAB	L21-59	-11.3	6	112	18.7	1	40	2.04
12	vsEast Carolina	L31-38	-1.0	5	158	31.6	3	50	1.62
13	@South Florida	L30-63	-2.3	6	126	21.0	1	72	0.92
14	vsFlorida Atlantic	L16-63	-12.7	4	65	16.3	0	37	-0.01

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

7.8%

Passing plays

13.9%

Rushing plays

1.2%

Standard downs

6.7%

Passing downs

9.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.87
Passing downs: 1.97
Pass / Rush EPA: 1.29 / 0.67

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