Tastean Reddicks

WR·Oregon State·2025

Tastean Reddicks is a Slot Specialist WR for Oregon State. Tastean's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 54 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 Tastean Reddicks'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

30 Receptions391 Rec yards0 Rec TD13.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume22
Explosiveness40
Consistency40
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 consistency40th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸3 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 — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.38 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Washington State (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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Ainias Smith	Texas A&M	2020	55	0.310	0.5	17.0
Keytaon Thompson	Virginia	2020	39	0.320	0.4	12.5
Cade Harris	Air Force	2024	45	0.330	0.5	14.8
Nick Nash	San José State	2021	45	0.310	0.5	14.0
Xavier White	Texas Tech	2020	62	0.300	0.5	18.6

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Long	EPA/play
1	vsCalifornia	L15-34	-3.2	1	16	16.0	16	-0.18
2	vsFresno State	L27-36	1.8	11	158	14.4	37	1.08
3	@Texas Tech	L14-45	27.6	3	39	13.0	22	1.22
4	@Oregon	L7-41	25.9	2	27	13.5	21	-0.04
5	vsHouston	L24-27	7.4	2	17	8.5	9	0.07
6	@App State	L23-27	-11.4	2	23	11.5	14	-0.64
7	vsWake Forest	L14-39	5.7	3	44	14.7	26	-0.08
8	vsLafayette	W45-13	—	2	18	9.0	11	0.14
10	vsWashington State	W10-7	3.8	2	37	18.5	25	1.38
11	vsSam Houston	L17-21	-27.8	2	12	6.0	9	0.26

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

7.7%

Passing plays

14.5%

Rushing plays

0.3%

Standard downs

6.1%

Passing downs

11.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.15
Passing downs: 0.53
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.34 / -0.40

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