Skip to content
George Burhenn

#81George Burhenn

George Burhenn is a Versatile TE for Purdue.

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 George Burhenn'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
9 Receptions94 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness23
  • Consistency83
  • Pass-Down50
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 consistency83th %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.
  • Peak game: 1.28 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Southern Illinois.

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

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.2801.28Wk 2 vs Southern Illinois: +1.28 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs USC: +0.16 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Notre Dame: +1.03 EPA/play4
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsSouthern IllinoisW34-1734816.00211.28
3vsUSCL17-3316.94266.50170.16
4@Notre DameL30-5624.422010.00141.03

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.3%
Passing plays
8.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.2%
Passing downs
4.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.73
Passing downs
0.73
Pass / Rush EPA
0.73 / —

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.
George Burhenn Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Purdue · Gridpex