Skip to content
Cooper Flanagan

#87Cooper Flanagan

Cooper Flanagan is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Notre Dame.

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 Cooper Flanagan'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
3 Receptions15 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness0
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down50
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
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Peak game: 2.07 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Rice (SP+ -10).

NIL Market Tier· 2026

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Johnny LanganRutgers0.2400.08.9
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.0702.07Wk 1 vs Wisconsin: +0.37 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Rice: +2.07 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsWisconsinW41-13-1.52136.5080.37
2vsRiceW52-0-10.4122.0122.07

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.3%
Passing plays
4.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.0%
Passing downs
0.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.37
Passing downs
Pass / Rush EPA
0.37 / —

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.