#16Blake Smith

TE·Texas State·2025

Blake Smith is a Versatile TE for Texas State.

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 Blake Smith'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

10 Receptions105 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume7
Explosiveness23
Consistency76
Pass-Down100

Player type

Versatile TE

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 consistency76th %ile · above avg

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.
▸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 0.29 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.37 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Louisiana (SP+ -10).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2020	59	0.300	0.0	17.7
Evan Svoboda	Wyoming	2024	75	0.290	0.5	21.8
Jordan Myers	Rice	2021	59	0.270	0.2	15.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Long	EPA/play
1	vsEastern Michigan	W52-27	-14.7	2	18	9.0	9	1.08
3	@Arizona State	L15-34	3.9	2	19	9.5	10	1.28
10	vsJames Madison	L20-52	12.3	2	15	7.5	10	-0.33
11	@Louisiana	L39-42	-10.1	1	11	11.0	11	1.37
13	vsUL Monroe	W31-14	-21.6	2	20	10.0	11	0.57
20	vsRice	W41-10	-14.8	1	22	22.0	22	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

2.4%

Passing plays

5.4%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

2.6%

Passing downs

2.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.50
Passing downs: 0.98
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.62 / —

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