Skip to content
Christian Bentancur
Christian Bentancur

#87Christian Bentancur

Christian Bentancur is a Versatile TE for Clemson.

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 Christian Bentancur'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
20 Receptions215 Rec yards3 Rec TD10.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness25
  • Consistency59
  • Pass-Down29
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 consistency59th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.52 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.05 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs North Carolina (SP+ -7).

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

+3.0503.05Wk 1 vs LSU: +0.67 EPA/play1Wk 4 vs Syracuse: +0.79 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs North Carolina: +3.05 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Boston College: -0.64 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs SMU: +0.72 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Florida State: -0.22 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Furman: +1.00 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs South Carolina: +0.56 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsLSUL10-1710.322311.50200.67
4vsSyracuseL21-34-13.12157.5080.79
6@North CarolinaW38-10-6.625326.52453.05
7@Boston CollegeW41-10-8.5122.002-0.64
8vsSMUL24-3513.44266.5090.72
11vsFlorida StateW24-107.211010.0010-0.22
13vsFurmanW45-10166.0161.00
14@South CarolinaW28-145.955110.20240.56
20vsPenn StateL10-2218.122914.5027

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
6.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.4%
Passing downs
5.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.72
Passing downs
0.59
Pass / Rush EPA
0.67 / —

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.