Skip to content
Boden Groen
Boden Groen

#88Boden Groen

TE·Kansas·2025

Boden Groen is a Versatile TE for Kansas. Boden's 2025 season produced 29.8 total EPA across 44 plays.

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 Boden Groen'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
36 Receptions450 Rec yards5 Rec TD12.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness37
  • Consistency80
  • Pass-Down0
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 consistency80th %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.
  • ▸8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 1.50 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.55 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Missouri (SP+ 14).

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

+2.550−2.55Wk 1 vs Wagner: +2.12 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Missouri: +2.55 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs West Virginia: +2.54 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Cincinnati: +1.27 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UCF: +1.66 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas Tech: +0.24 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Kansas State: -0.10 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oklahoma State: +1.22 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Arizona: +1.03 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Iowa State: +0.70 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0vsFresno StateW31-71.8133.003—
1vsWagnerW46-7—25326.50272.12
2@MissouriL31-4214.412424.00242.55
4vsWest VirginiaW41-10-6.8177.0172.54
5vsCincinnatiL34-374.558416.81241.27
6@UCFW27-20-1.226331.50461.66
7@Texas TechL17-4227.613765.81240.24
9vsKansas StateL17-427.02178.509-0.10
10vsOklahoma StateW38-21-15.1252.5131.22
11@ArizonaL20-2412.024221.00221.03
13@Iowa StateL14-389.957615.21340.70

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.0%
Passing plays
13.2%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.4%
Passing downs
4.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.84
Passing downs
0.11
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / —

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.