#17Zion Taylor

WR·Georgia Tech·2025

Zion Taylor is a Slot Specialist WR for Georgia Tech.

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 Zion Taylor'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

11 Receptions129 Rec yards1 Rec TD11.7 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume8
Explosiveness32
Consistency70
Pass-Down100

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)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency70th %ile · average

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.
▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.37 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 2.33 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Syracuse (SP+ -13).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	@Colorado	W27-20	-8.3	1	1	1.0	0	1	-0.27
2	vsGardner-Webb	W59-12	—	3	58	19.3	0	45	1.22
3	vsClemson	W24-21	9.5	1	18	18.0	0	18	1.26
9	vsSyracuse	W41-16	-13.1	2	25	12.5	0	14	2.33
10	@NC State	L36-48	4.8	2	20	10.0	1	16	1.26
12	@Boston College	W36-34	-8.5	2	7	3.5	0	4	-0.27

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

2.9%

Passing plays

6.7%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

1.6%

Passing downs

7.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.37
Passing downs: 1.31
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.92 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).