Skip to content
Winn Sharp

#18Winn Sharp

Winn Sharp is a Slot Specialist WR for Bowling Green.

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 Winn Sharp'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 Receptions46 Rec yards0 Rec TD9.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency17
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness15
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down0
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)17th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Peak game: 0.40 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Akron (SP+ -14).

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
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.2200.815.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7801.78Wk 5 vs Ohio: +0.36 EPA/play5Wk 10 vs Buffalo: -1.78 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.14 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Akron: +0.40 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
5@OhioL20-35-4.0166.0060.36
10vsBuffaloL3-28-7.5166.006-1.78
11@Eastern MichiganL21-27-14.712020.00200.14
13vsAkronL16-19-13.92147.0070.40

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.7%
Passing plays
6.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.3%
Passing downs
3.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.45
Passing downs
-0.13
Pass / Rush EPA
0.06 / —

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.