Skip to content
Alex Honig

#86Alex Honig

TE·UConn·2025

Alex Honig is a Red Zone Weapon TE for UConn.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Alex Honig'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
13 Receptions162 Rec yards3 Rec TD12.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency74
  • Pass-Down37
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency74th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.80 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.47 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Florida Atlantic (SP+ -9).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.4701.47Wk 1 vs Central Connecticut: -0.10 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Syracuse: +0.33 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Delaware: +1.10 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Florida International: -0.33 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Boston College: +1.43 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Rice: +1.41 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UAB: +0.55 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Duke: +0.77 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Florida Atlantic: +1.47 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsCentral ConnecticutW59-13144.004-0.10
2@SyracuseL20-27-13.122110.51150.33
3@DelawareL41-44-10.9111.0111.10
6vsFlorida InternationalW51-10-10.5122.002-0.33
8@Boston CollegeW38-23-8.525527.50401.43
9@RiceL34-37-14.8177.0071.41
10vsUABW38-19-15.811111.00110.55
11vsDukeW37-346.62178.5090.77
13@Florida AtlanticW48-45-8.724422.01321.47

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.0%
Passing plays
5.2%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
3.1%
Passing downs
2.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.71
Passing downs
0.64
Pass / Rush EPA
0.53 / 3.96

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.