Skip to content
Xavier Worthy

#1Xavier Worthy

WR·Texas·2023

Xavier Worthy is a Versatile WR for Texas. Xavier's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 85 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

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 Xavier Worthy'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
75 Receptions1014 Rec yards5 Rec TD13.5 Yards/rec
Returns
23 Punt returns371 PR yards1 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume28
  • Explosiveness43
  • Consistency86
  • 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 consistency86th %ile · above avg
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.
  • 9 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 — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.14 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Houston (SP+ -8).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.1401.14Wk 1 vs Rice: +0.57 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Alabama: +0.19 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Wyoming: +0.61 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Baylor: +0.70 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Kansas: +1.12 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Oklahoma: +0.36 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Houston: +1.14 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Kansas State: +0.71 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs TCU: +0.77 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Iowa State: +0.67 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Texas Tech: +0.47 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Oklahoma State: +0.26 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsRiceW37-10-10.279012.90240.57
2@AlabamaW34-2423.157515.01440.19
3vsWyomingW31-10-3.645614.01440.61
4@BaylorW38-6-8.333110.31210.70
5vsKansasW40-149.979313.30391.12
6vsOklahomaL30-3415.0810813.50390.36
8@HoustonW31-24-7.869215.31421.14
9vsBYUW35-6-3.34276.8014
10vsKansas StateW33-3016.25489.60240.71
11@TCUW29-267.91013713.70450.77
12@Iowa StateW26-167.547719.30300.67
13vsTexas TechW57-76.144912.31190.47
14vsOklahoma StateW49-216.768614.30540.26
20vsWashingtonL31-3716.424522.5038

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.8%
Passing plays
18.5%
Rushing plays
0.9%
Standard downs
9.6%
Passing downs
10.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.43
Passing downs
0.80
Pass / Rush EPA
0.62 / -0.98

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.