Skip to content
Tyler King

Tyler King

Tyler King is a Versatile WR for New Mexico State.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

9%
projected
band 5%'25 11%13%

Regressed toward the WR mean. Model correlation r≈0.47 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

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 Tyler King'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
14 Receptions239 Rec yards2 Rec TD17.1 Yards/rec
Returns
3 Kick returns44 KR yards0 KR TD2 Punt returns1 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

23
Targets
20.6y
Avg depth
1.9y
After catch
52%
Catch rate

The ball travels 20.6 yards in the air on an average target 11.7 yards deeper than the median. Another 1.9 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
3
33% · 46y
9
22% · 75y
short
1
100% · 1y
4
75% · 27y
6
83% · 38y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume37
  • Explosiveness67
  • Consistency50
  • 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
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.90 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Mercyhurst.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9000.90Wk 1 vs Mercyhurst: +0.90 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Hawai'i: +0.28 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0@Florida StateL17-346.977811.1134
1vsMercyhurstW51-1439431.30460.90
2@Hawai'iL19-29-7.046716.81330.28

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.9%
Passing plays
25.0%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
12.8%
Passing downs
13.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.25
Passing downs
0.89
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / —

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.