Skip to content
Rico Walker

#8Rico Walker

Rico Walker is a Slot Specialist TE for Purdue.

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 Rico Walker'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
9 Receptions100 Rec yards0 Rec TD11.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness27
  • Consistency78
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Slot Specialist TE

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 consistency78th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Peak game: 2.62 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Northwestern (SP+ 6).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.6202.62Wk 6 vs Illinois: +1.37 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Minnesota: -0.17 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Northwestern: +2.62 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Ohio State: +2.59 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Washington: +0.86 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
6vsIllinoisL27-4312.9199.0091.37
7@MinnesotaL20-271.53165.308-0.17
8@NorthwesternL0-195.812020.00202.62
11vsOhio StateL10-3430.113030.00302.59
12@WashingtonL13-4918.43258.30180.86

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.1%
Passing plays
5.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.0%
Passing downs
5.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.72
Passing downs
0.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.49 / —

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.