Skip to content
Tristen Brown

#5Tristen Brown

Tristen Brown is a Versatile WR for Vanderbilt.

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 Tristen Brown'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
10 Receptions137 Rec yards0 Rec TD13.7 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns6 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness45
  • Consistency65
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
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.
  • 4 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 0.18 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.39 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Georgia State (SP+ -25).

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
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9
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

+2.3902.39Wk 1 vs Charleston Southern: -0.63 EPA/play1Wk 4 vs Georgia State: +2.39 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Utah State: +0.49 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Alabama: +1.02 EPA/play6Wk 13 vs Kentucky: +0.84 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsCharleston SouthernW45-3-0.63
4vsGeorgia StateW70-21-24.537123.70282.39
5vsUtah StateW55-35-3.111111.00110.49
6@AlabamaL14-3014.8199.0091.02
13vsKentuckyW45-171.823115.50180.84
20vsIowaL27-3419.73155.006

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.9%
Passing plays
4.4%
Rushing plays
0.7%
Standard downs
2.8%
Passing downs
3.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.18
Passing downs
1.14
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / -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.