#80Brody Foley

TE·Tulsa·2025

Brody Foley is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Tulsa. Brody's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 56 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

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 Brody Foley'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 Receptions521 Rec yards7 Rec TD14.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume18
Explosiveness50
Consistency79
Pass-Down100

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 consistency79th %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.
▸10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.75 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.67 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Abilene Christian.

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	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	vsAbilene Christian	W35-7	—	1	22	22.0	1	22	2.67
2	@New Mexico State	L14-21	-15.5	1	18	18.0	1	18	0.97
3	vsNavy	L23-42	6.2	1	12	12.0	0	12	1.03
4	@Oklahoma State	W19-12	-15.1	4	59	14.8	0	42	0.52
5	vsTulane	L14-31	6.3	1	72	72.0	1	72	1.35
6	@Memphis	L7-45	7.6	3	30	10.0	0	15	1.25
8	@East Carolina	L27-41	8.0	6	126	21.0	1	38	1.03
9	vsTemple	L37-38	-5.1	6	41	6.8	2	17	0.55
11	@Florida Atlantic	L21-40	-8.7	3	22	7.3	0	13	-0.11
12	vsOregon State	W31-14	-15.9	7	95	13.6	1	40	0.83
13	@Army	W26-25	0.8	3	24	8.0	0	17	0.46

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

6.4%

Passing plays

12.2%

Rushing plays

1.1%

Standard downs

7.2%

Passing downs

4.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.55
Passing downs: 1.32
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.72 / 0.85

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