Skip to content
Tyrell Henry

#0Tyrell Henry

Tyrell Henry is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Wisconsin.

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 Tyrell Henry'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
5 Receptions29 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.8 Yards/rec
Returns
10 Punt returns87 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.

7
Targets
-6.0y
Avg depth
22.5y
After catch
57%
Catch rate

The ball travels -6.0 yards in the air on an average target 15.0 yards shorter than the median. Another 22.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
5
60% · 38y
0
2
50% · 4y
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 · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency67
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down0
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)67th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.46 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.42 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Iowa (SP+ 20).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Justin LynchTemple0.2400.315.1
Samajie GrantArizona0.2500.315.5
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4201.42Wk 1 vs Miami (OH): +0.23 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Middle Tennessee: +1.30 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Alabama: -0.07 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Maryland: -0.30 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Michigan: +0.11 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa: +1.42 EPA/play7Wk 12 vs Indiana: -0.80 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Illinois: -0.22 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Minnesota: -1.25 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMiami (OH)W17-0-3.411010.00100.23
2vsMiddle TennesseeW42-10-16.02-2-1.0131.30
3@AlabamaL14-3814.8-0.07
4vsMarylandL10-270.6155.005-0.30
6@MichiganL10-2412.40.11
7vsIowaL0-3719.711616.00161.42
11vsWashingtonW13-1018.4
12@IndianaL7-3132.4-0.80
13vsIllinoisW27-1012.9-0.22
14@MinnesotaL7-171.5-1.25

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.6%
Passing plays
2.1%
Rushing plays
3.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
1.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.39
Passing downs
-0.32
Pass / Rush EPA
0.95 / -0.16

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.