Skip to content
Tim Grear Jr.
Tim Grear Jr.

#4Tim Grear Jr.

WR·Akron·2025

Tim Grear Jr. is a Slot Specialist WR for Akron.

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 Tim Grear Jr.'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
14 Receptions178 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness38
  • Consistency54
  • Pass-Down19
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 consistency54th %ile · average
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.
  • ▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.38 from the first to second half of the season.
  • ▸Peak game: 1.58 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Ball State (SP+ -23).

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Cade HarrisAir Force0.3300.514.8
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3200.412.5

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.580−1.58Wk 1 vs Wyoming: +0.38 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nebraska: -0.39 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UAB: +0.46 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Duquesne: +0.65 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Toledo: +0.06 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Miami (OH): -0.05 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ball State: +1.58 EPA/play8
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsWyomingL0-10-11.32115.5080.38
2@NebraskaL0-686.2199.009-0.39
3@UABL28-31-15.833612.00170.46
4vsDuquesneW51-7—11515.01150.65
5@ToledoL3-456.02105.0050.06
7vsMiami (OH)L7-20-3.411010.0010-0.05
8@Ball StateL28-42-23.048721.80371.58

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.3%
Passing plays
11.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.2%
Passing downs
10.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.52
Passing downs
0.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.41 / —

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.