Skip to content
Ethan Barbour

#9Ethan Barbour

Ethan Barbour is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Georgia.

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 Ethan Barbour'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
2 Receptions17 Rec yards1 Rec TD8.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness10
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down0
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: 2.20 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Western Kentucky (SP+ -13).

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

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.2002.20Wk 1 vs Tennessee State: -0.17 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Kentucky: +2.20 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsTennessee StateW63-311010.0010-0.17
2vsWestern KentuckyW70-20-13.1177.0172.20

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.3%
Passing plays
6.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.1%
Passing downs
3.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.77
Passing downs
-0.61
Pass / Rush EPA
0.43 / —

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.