#87Nate Boerkircher

TE·Texas A&M·2025

Nate Boerkircher is a Versatile TE for Texas A&M.

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 Nate Boerkircher'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 Receptions204 Rec yards3 Rec TD10.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume10
Explosiveness21
Consistency72
Pass-Down78

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 consistency72th %ile · average

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.
▸8 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 — 0.61 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 3.64 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Notre Dame (SP+ 24).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	vsUTSA	W42-24	3.7	2	17	8.5	0	13	0.93
3	@Notre Dame	W41-40	24.4	1	11	11.0	1	11	3.64
5	vsAuburn	W16-10	11.6	1	9	9.0	0	9	0.79
6	vsMississippi State	W31-9	4.1	1	7	7.0	0	7	0.97
7	vsFlorida	W34-17	3.5	3	35	11.7	0	28	0.63
8	@Arkansas	W45-42	5.1	4	29	7.3	1	12	0.92
9	@LSU	W49-25	10.3	—	—	—	—	—	0.33
11	@Missouri	W38-17	14.4	2	15	7.5	0	11	-0.39
12	vsSouth Carolina	W31-30	5.9	3	40	13.3	1	19	1.88
14	@Texas	L17-27	16.2	1	8	8.0	0	8	1.29
20	vsMiami	L3-10	20.7	2	33	16.5	0	19	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

3.6%

Passing plays

7.1%

Rushing plays

0.8%

Standard downs

3.5%

Passing downs

4.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.78
Passing downs: 0.95
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.78 / 1.32

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