Skip to content
Khafre Brown

#89Khafre Brown

Khafre Brown is a Red Zone Weapon WR for South Florida. Khafre's 2023 season produced 31.8 total EPA across 31 plays.

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 Khafre 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

Receiving
27 Receptions435 Rec yards5 Rec TD16.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness61
  • Consistency74
  • Pass-Down0
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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency74th %ile · average
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.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Peak game: 4.22 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Rice (SP+ -10).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+4.2204.22Wk 1 vs Western Kentucky: +1.23 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Florida A&M: +0.49 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Rice: +4.22 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Navy: +0.85 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UAB: +0.18 EPA/play6Wk 10 vs Memphis: +1.38 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Temple: +2.87 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UTSA: +1.00 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Charlotte: +0.60 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Western KentuckyL24-41-2.039531.71841.23
2vsFlorida A&MW38-243144.7190.49
4vsRiceW42-29-10.215959.00594.22
5@NavyW44-30-13.778011.40290.85
6@UABL35-56-14.712525.00250.18
10@MemphisL50-593.533210.71191.38
11vsTempleW27-23-21.013232.01322.87
12@UTSAL21-495.43299.70131.00
13vsCharlotteW48-14-21.44389.50160.60
20vsSyracuseW45-0-4.413131.0131

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.3%
Passing plays
9.0%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
3.8%
Passing downs
5.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.19
Passing downs
0.77
Pass / Rush EPA
0.92 / 4.22

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.