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)0.42Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
- EPA per play (efficiency)0.04Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
- Total EPA (value)0.46Beats 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 Nick Townsend'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
Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers
- Efficiency0
- Volume5
- Explosiveness0
- Consistency50
- Pass-Down0
Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.
- ▸Below-average efficiency vs TE peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
- ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
- ▸Peak game: 1.21 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Texas A&M (SP+ 21).
NIL Market Tier· 2025
On3 valuation ↗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.
Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.
Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week
Usage & Situational · Pro
- Standard downs
- 0.12
- Passing downs
- -0.43
- Pass / Rush EPA
- -0.13 / 0.20
Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).