Skip to content
Xayvion Turner-Bradshaw
Xayvion Turner-Bradshaw

#5Xayvion Turner-Bradshaw

Xayvion Turner-Bradshaw is a Versatile WR for Marshall.

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 Xayvion Turner-Bradshaw'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
8 Receptions109 Rec yards0 Rec TD13.6 Yards/rec
Returns
23 Kick returns510 KR yards0 KR TD2 Punt returns-2 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.

9
Targets
8.7y
Avg depth
16.0y
After catch
56%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.7 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 16.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
0
0
short
4
75% · 13y
1
100% · 69y
3
33% · 14y
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

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume10
  • Explosiveness44
  • Consistency0
  • 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)0th %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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.80 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Georgia (SP+ 24).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8001.80Wk 1 vs Georgia: +1.80 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Eastern Kentucky: -0.26 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Middle Tennessee: -0.82 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Old Dominion: -0.12 EPA/play7Wk 10 vs Coastal Carolina: +0.25 EPA/play10
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@GeorgiaL7-4524.135819.30441.80
2vsMissouri StateL20-21-10.7155.005
3vsEastern KentuckyW38-711616.0016-0.26
4@Middle TennesseeW42-28-16.022311.5017-0.82
5@LouisianaL51-54-10.1
7vsOld DominionW48-245.9-0.12
8vsTexas StateW40-372.3
10@Coastal CarolinaL27-44-15.1177.0070.25
11vsJames MadisonL23-3512.3
12@Georgia StateW30-18-24.5
13@App StateL24-26-11.4
14vsGeorgia SouthernL19-24-9.4

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.4%
Passing plays
7.3%
Rushing plays
1.3%
Standard downs
3.2%
Passing downs
3.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.55
Passing downs
0.25
Pass / Rush EPA
0.63 / -3.09

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.