Skip to content
Tray Taylor

#8Tray Taylor

WR·Troy·2025

Tray Taylor is a Slot Specialist WR for Troy. Tray'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 Tray Taylor'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
52 Rush yards1 Rush TD10 Carries5.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
31 Receptions513 Rec yards3 Rec TD16.5 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns0 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume19
  • Explosiveness64
  • Consistency77
  • 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 consistency77th %ile · above 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 consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 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 — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.93 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Texas State (SP+ 2).

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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.9301.93Wk 1 vs Nicholls: +0.98 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Clemson: +1.17 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Buffalo: +0.11 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs South Alabama: +0.47 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas State: +1.93 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UL Monroe: +1.47 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Louisiana: +0.15 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Arkansas State: +1.61 EPA/play10Wk 13 vs Georgia State: +1.30 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Southern Miss: +0.24 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs James Madison: +0.00 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNichollsW38-2012828.01280.98
2@ClemsonL16-279.546917.31441.17
4@BuffaloW21-17-7.54205.0090.11
6vsSouth AlabamaW31-24-12.727437.00480.47
7@Texas StateW48-412.325025.00311.93
8@UL MonroeW37-14-21.628944.51601.47
9vsLouisianaW35-23-10.13165.3090.15
10vsArkansas StateL10-23-8.825628.00431.61
13vsGeorgia StateW31-19-24.56579.50171.30
14@Southern MissW28-18-7.12199.50140.24
15@James MadisonL14-3112.333511.70300.00

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.6%
Passing plays
10.7%
Rushing plays
2.3%
Standard downs
5.2%
Passing downs
9.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.54
Passing downs
1.08
Pass / Rush EPA
0.90 / 0.31

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.