#18Quin Smith

WR·Air Force·2025

Quin Smith is a Vertical Threat WR for Air Force.

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 Quin Smith'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

15 Receptions358 Rec yards4 Rec TD23.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume11
Explosiveness100
Consistency58
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 consistency58th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸7 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 — 0.64 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.47 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Colorado State (SP+ -16).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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
1	vsBucknell	W49-13	—	1	40	40.0	1	40	1.24
3	@Utah State	L30-49	-3.1	2	45	22.5	0	32	0.11
4	vsBoise State	L37-49	3.1	3	65	21.7	1	32	1.42
5	vsHawai'i	L35-44	1.7	3	110	36.7	1	52	2.20
6	@Navy	L31-34	6.2	1	15	15.0	0	15	1.32
10	vsArmy	L17-20	0.8	1	16	16.0	0	16	1.41
11	@San José State	W26-16	-14.3	1	12	12.0	1	12	1.45
12	@UConn	L16-26	5.1	1	12	12.0	0	12	0.16
13	vsNew Mexico	L3-20	0.9	—	—	—	—	—	-2.40
14	@Colorado State	W42-21	-15.6	2	43	21.5	0	27	2.47

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

4.0%

Passing plays

17.7%

Rushing plays

0.2%

Standard downs

3.1%

Passing downs

6.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.43
Passing downs: 1.65
Pass / Rush EPA: 1.06 / -2.48

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