#3Tristian Gardner

WR·Missouri State·2025

Tristian Gardner is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Missouri State. Tristian's 2025 season produced 36.6 total EPA across 38 plays.

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 Tristian Gardner'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 Receptions465 Rec yards6 Rec TD15.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume14
Explosiveness57
Consistency74
Pass-Down100

Player type

Red Zone Weapon WR

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency74th %ile · average

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.
▸10 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 — 0.99 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.60 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs USC (SP+ 17).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	@USC	L13-73	16.9	2	39	19.5	1	33	2.60
2	@Marshall	W21-20	-4.5	3	26	8.7	0	18	1.02
3	vsSMU	L10-28	13.4	2	39	19.5	0	32	0.64
4	vsUT Martin	W42-10	—	2	44	22.0	0	35	0.92
5	vsWestern Kentucky	L22-27	1.6	2	23	11.5	1	14	1.85
7	@Middle Tennessee	W22-20	-16.0	3	70	23.3	0	42	2.17
9	@New Mexico State	W24-17	-15.5	3	28	9.3	0	10	0.93
10	vsFlorida International	W28-21	-10.5	1	0	0.0	0	0	-0.27
11	@Liberty	W21-17	-9.0	5	80	16.0	1	31	1.61
12	vsUTEP	W38-24	-17.5	4	36	9.0	1	14	0.52
13	@Kennesaw State	L34-41	-5.4	2	53	26.5	2	34	-0.75
14	vsLouisiana Tech	L30-42	-1.3	1	27	27.0	0	27	1.24

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

5.0%

Passing plays

9.1%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

2.6%

Passing downs

9.3%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.69
Passing downs: 1.09
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.96 / —

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