R.J. Maryland

TE·SMU·2025

R.J. Maryland is a Versatile TE for SMU. R.J.'s 2025 season produced 15.9 total EPA across 38 plays.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
Total EPA (value)0.46
Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So R.J. Maryland'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

27 Receptions322 Rec yards2 Rec TD11.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume14
Explosiveness33
Consistency63
Pass-Down100

Player type

Versatile TE

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role

Peer percentiles

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

Game-to-game consistency63th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among TEs — 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.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.33 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 2.38 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Boston College (SP+ -9).

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 · TE · 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
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2020	59	0.300	0.0	17.7
Evan Svoboda	Wyoming	2024	75	0.290	0.5	21.8
Jordan Myers	Rice	2021	59	0.270	0.2	15.9

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	vsEast Texas A&M	W42-13	—	3	34	11.3	0	14	0.53
2	vsBaylor	L45-48	1.4	2	9	4.5	0	6	0.01
3	@Missouri State	W28-10	-10.7	3	23	7.7	1	14	0.51
4	@TCU	L24-35	8.3	1	10	10.0	0	10	0.71
6	vsSyracuse	W31-18	-13.1	3	40	13.3	1	24	0.66
7	vsStanford	W34-10	-11.8	2	18	9.0	0	9	0.03
8	@Clemson	W35-24	9.5	3	33	11.0	0	17	0.09
9	@Wake Forest	L12-13	5.7	2	51	25.5	0	49	0.37
10	vsMiami	W26-20	20.7	1	6	6.0	0	6	-0.42
11	@Boston College	W45-13	-8.5	2	42	21.0	0	23	2.38
13	vsLouisville	W38-6	12.4	3	23	7.7	0	17	0.53
14	@California	L35-38	-3.2	2	33	16.5	0	21	1.47

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

5.0%

Passing plays

9.2%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

6.2%

Passing downs

2.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.17
Passing downs: 1.75
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.42 / —

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