Michigan State WR Room Preview (2026): Limiting the Drop, Not Replacing the Volume

Passing Game Context: Why 2026 Is About Damage Control

Michigan State’s 2025 passing game finished with 240 total receptions and 2,672 receiving yards, production that was uneven but still driven by a more talented group on paper than what the Spartans project heading into 2026.

The problem in 2025 wasn’t a lack of capable bodies. It was:

• Inconsistent separation

• Limited third-down reliability

• A passing game that stalled too often despite veteran presence

That context matters, because 2026 isn’t about upgrading the WR room outright. It’s about managing regression, improving efficiency, and redistributing targets in a way that keeps the offense functional.

Departures: The Volume Is Gone and It’s Not Coming Back Cleanly

Michigan State loses the bulk of its receiving production, led by Nick Marsh (59 receptions), alongside Omari Kelly (47).

Also departing:

• Tight ends Jack Velling and Michael Masunas

• Receiving back Elijah Tau-Tolliver

• Depth WRs including Evan Boyd

Even if Michigan State adds another WR via the portal, the reality is simple: one or two additions are not replacing this volume.

The same is true at tight end, where the remaining group lacks both depth and proven production. There is no clean personnel-based solution to offset these losses.

Players In: Additions With Defined (and Limited) Expectations

KK Smith (Notre Dame)

KK Smith arrives as a speed-based upside play with multiple years of eligibility. He’s not a volume replacement, but he adds a vertical element the room lacks.

Frederick Moore (Michigan)

Frederick Moore profiles as a craft-based slot option. A player who can help structure the offense with route running and short-area separation, while also contributing on special teams.

Neither player is expected to replace Marsh or Kelly individually. That’s not the plan (I hope).

Personnel Reality: Why 11 Personnel Is Still Inevitable

One of the biggest challenges for the 2026 offense is that Michigan State does not have the tight end depth or talent to live in 12 personnel as a workaround for WR limitations. In 2025, MSU had Velling and Masunas, who allowed us to go "heavy" at times. With both departing, the Spartans are forced into 11 personnel for large portions of Big Ten play (as the roster is currently constructed).

And in those looks:

• Michigan State will often be at a matchup disadvantage at two of the three WR spots

• Especially against man-heavy Big Ten defenses

This is why the solution can’t be schematic alone. The production has to come from incremental growth across multiple positions.

Closing the Gap: How the Targets Actually Add Up

Michigan State isn’t replacing departing production, it’s spreading it thinner and wider.

Below is a realistic YoY reception growth model that shows how the staff could partially close the gap:

Projected YoY Reception Growth

Player	2025 Receptions (at MSU)	2026 Projection	Δ
Chrishon McCray	24	50	+26
Rodney Bullard Jr.	5	15	+10
KK Smith	0	25	+25
Frederick Moore	0	15	+15
Bryson Williams	1	10	+9
Brandon Collier	0	10	+10
Charles Taplin	1	10	+9
Brandon Tullis	11	15	+4
Cam Edwards	0	15	+15
Marvis Parrish	0	20	+20
Jayden Savoury	1	10	+9
Anthony Paracheck	0	10	+10

Total Added Receptions: +172

This doesn’t fully replace what left, and it doesn’t need to.

What it does:

• Reduces pressure on any single WR

• Allows the offense to stay on schedule

• Creates matchup stress through RBs rather than relying on WR wins outside

The RB Room: From Safety Valve to Offensive Pillar

Because Michigan State can’t hide in heavier personnel groupings, the RB passing game becomes foundational, not optional.

The projected RB contribution (Edwards, Parrish, Tullis) is central to:

• Third-down efficiency

• Beating pressure looks

• Masking WR matchup disadvantages

This is how the offense avoids collapse even if WR explosiveness declines.

Bottom Line

The 2026 WR room is a step back in raw talent from 2025, even though the 2025 group was uneven.

The plan reflects that reality:

• Don’t chase replacement stars

• Spread the load

• Lean into RB receiving

• Win with consistency and efficiency, not volume or explosiveness

If Michigan State can avoid negative plays and get modest, distributed growth across the offense, the passing game can remain functional, even if it’s rarely dominant.