Skip to content
Evan Svoboda

#86Evan Svoboda

Evan Svoboda is a Versatile TE for Wyoming.

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 Evan Svoboda'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
11 Receptions92 Rec yards1 Rec TD8.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness9
  • Consistency36
  • Pass-Down100
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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency36th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs TE peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 3 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 — 0.12 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.76 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Nevada (SP+ -13).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
Robby PreckelNorthwestern0.0600.12.5
A.J. DoyleMassachusetts0.0400.02.1
Blake BellOklahoma0.0700.14.4
Jaheim BellSouth Carolina0.1100.08.0
Kaden FeaginIllinois0.1500.07.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.7602.76Wk 2 vs Northern Iowa: +0.32 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Utah: +1.04 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Colorado: +0.76 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs UNLV: -0.19 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs San José State: +0.10 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Air Force: -1.11 EPA/play8Wk 13 vs Nevada: +2.76 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsNorthern IowaW31-70.32
3vsUtahL6-3122.2188.0081.04
4@ColoradoL20-37-8.312727.00270.76
6vsUNLVL17-314.32126.007-0.19
7vsSan José StateW35-28-14.34246.00100.10
8@Air ForceL21-24-3.22168.0011-1.11
13vsNevadaL7-13-13.4155.0152.76

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.3%
Passing plays
6.7%
Rushing plays
1.7%
Standard downs
4.3%
Passing downs
4.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.30
Passing downs
0.70
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.01 / 0.24

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.650−2.72
EPA per play · 2024 · 11 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.