Skip to content
Tailique Williams
Tailique Williams

Tailique Williams

Tailique Williams is a Slot Specialist WR for Western Michigan. Tailique's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 65 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 Tailique Williams'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

Rushing
84 Rush yards1 Rush TD12 Carries7.0 Yards/carry
Receiving
35 Receptions478 Rec yards2 Rec TD13.7 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns-2 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume22
  • Explosiveness44
  • Consistency23
  • 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 consistency23th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 5 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 — 0.16 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.36 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Ohio (SP+ -4).

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
Ainias SmithTexas A&M0.3100.517.0
Xavier WhiteTexas Tech0.3000.518.6
Noah ShortArmy0.3000.520.7
Malik DunnerBall State0.2900.422.0
Chris TyreeNotre Dame0.3100.623.6

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.3601.36Wk 1 vs Michigan State: -0.05 EPA/play1Wk 4 vs Toledo: +1.04 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Rhode Island: -0.19 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Massachusetts: -0.04 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Ball State: +0.86 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Miami (OH): +0.42 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Central Michigan: +0.28 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Ohio: +1.36 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Northern Illinois: -0.95 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.84 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Miami (OH): -0.63 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Michigan StateL6-23-3.467412.3035-0.05
4vsToledoW14-136.0411228.00431.04
5vsRhode IslandW47-1423115.5024-0.19
6@MassachusettsW21-3-36.63124.006-0.04
7vsBall StateW42-0-23.055511.00240.86
9@Miami (OH)L17-26-3.457114.21430.42
10vsCentral MichiganW24-21-8.87486.91150.28
12vsOhioW17-13-4.017171.00711.36
13@Northern IllinoisW35-19-16.7242.002-0.95
14@Eastern MichiganW31-21-14.70.84
15vsMiami (OH)W23-13-3.4-0.63
20vsKennesaw StateW41-6-5.4

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.7%
Passing plays
18.0%
Rushing plays
2.2%
Standard downs
6.2%
Passing downs
11.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.15
Passing downs
0.54
Pass / Rush EPA
0.31 / 0.42

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.