Skip to content
Lotzeir Brooks

#3Lotzeir Brooks

Lotzeir Brooks is a Slot Specialist WR for Alabama. Lotzeir's 2025 season produced 20.2 total EPA across 47 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 Lotzeir Brooks'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
32 Receptions441 Rec yards2 Rec TD13.8 Yards/rec
Returns
15 Kick returns283 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness45
  • Consistency60
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency60th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 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 — 0.90 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.29 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs UL Monroe (SP+ -22).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.2901.29Wk 2 vs UL Monroe: +1.29 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Wisconsin: +0.61 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Georgia: +1.10 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Vanderbilt: +0.82 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Missouri: +0.85 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Tennessee: +0.35 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs LSU: +0.19 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Oklahoma: +0.89 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Eastern Illinois: -0.62 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Auburn: -0.08 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Georgia: -0.43 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsUL MonroeW73-0-21.645814.50191.29
3vsWisconsinW38-14-4.423015.00160.61
5@GeorgiaW24-2124.124020.00211.10
6vsVanderbiltW30-1420.313030.00300.82
7@MissouriW27-2414.445814.50290.85
8vsTennesseeW37-2015.033913.00250.35
11vsLSUW20-910.346716.80530.19
12vsOklahomaL21-2318.32126.0060.89
13vsEastern IllinoisW56-01-2-2.000-0.62
14@AuburnW27-2011.63299.7015-0.08
15vsGeorgiaL7-2824.1111.001-0.43
20vsIndianaL3-3832.4
20@OklahomaW34-2418.357915.8230

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.0%
Passing plays
10.4%
Rushing plays
1.0%
Standard downs
4.1%
Passing downs
10.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.07
Passing downs
0.78
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / 0.41

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.