Skip to content
Tony Freeman

#0Tony Freeman

Tony Freeman is a Slot Specialist WR for Washington State. Tony's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 71 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 Tony Freeman'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
54 Receptions588 Rec yards3 Rec TD10.9 Yards/rec
Returns
24 Punt returns415 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness26
  • Consistency65
  • 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 consistency65th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — 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 0.45 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 3.54 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Toledo (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 · 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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Zach AbeyNavy0.3700.825.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.5403.54Wk 1 vs Idaho: +0.57 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs San Diego State: +0.35 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs North Texas: +1.34 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Washington: +1.79 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Colorado State: +0.01 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Ole Miss: +0.17 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Virginia: +0.02 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Toledo: +3.54 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oregon State: +0.78 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.08 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs James Madison: +0.77 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Oregon State: +0.74 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsIdahoW13-107649.10190.57
2vsSan Diego StateW36-136.76437.20110.35
3@North TexasL10-5913.834715.70231.34
4vsWashingtonL24-5918.422814.00171.79
5@Colorado StateW20-3-15.633010.00190.01
7@Ole MissL21-2424.099010.01190.17
8@VirginiaL20-2211.1155.0050.02
9vsToledoW28-76.011515.01153.54
10@Oregon StateL7-10-15.923718.50260.78
12vsLouisiana TechW28-3-1.34317.8010-0.08
13@James MadisonL20-2412.368113.51480.77
14vsOregon StateW32-8-15.978412.00180.74
20vsUtah StateW34-21-3.133311.0018

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.6%
Passing plays
17.1%
Rushing plays
0.2%
Standard downs
6.7%
Passing downs
12.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.08
Passing downs
0.91
Pass / Rush EPA
0.47 / -0.63

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.