Skip to content
Malik Benson

#4Malik Benson

Malik Benson is a Slot Specialist WR for Oregon. Malik's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 56 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 Malik Benson'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
43 Receptions719 Rec yards6 Rec TD16.7 Yards/rec
Returns
7 Punt returns143 PR yards1 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness65
  • Consistency58
  • Pass-Down94
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 consistency58th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.45 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.71 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Minnesota (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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

+2.7102.71Wk 1 vs Montana State: +0.98 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma State: +0.60 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Northwestern: +1.27 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Oregon State: +0.99 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Penn State: +0.36 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Indiana: +0.66 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Rutgers: +0.09 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Wisconsin: -1.40 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Iowa: -0.09 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Minnesota: +2.71 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs USC: +0.49 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Washington: +1.50 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMontana StateW59-1355110.21180.98
2vsOklahoma StateW69-3-15.124824.01420.60
3@NorthwesternW34-145.846215.50271.27
4vsOregon StateW41-7-15.934013.30310.99
5@Penn StateW30-2418.12115.5070.36
7vsIndianaL20-3032.414444.01440.66
8@RutgersW56-101.012121.00210.09
9vsWisconsinW21-7-4.4-1.40
11@IowaW18-1619.722914.5024-0.09
12vsMinnesotaW42-131.525125.50382.71
13vsUSCW42-2716.946716.80300.49
14@WashingtonW26-1418.4510220.41641.50
20vsIndianaL22-5632.422311.5014
20vsTexas TechW23-027.655110.2024
20vsJames MadisonW51-3412.3511923.8246

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.1%
Passing plays
13.2%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
5.3%
Passing downs
8.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.76
Passing downs
1.02
Pass / Rush EPA
0.90 / -1.96

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.