#11Olsen Patt-Henry

TE·Clemson·2025

Olsen Patt-Henry is a Versatile TE for Clemson.

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 Olsen Patt-Henry'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

16 Receptions126 Rec yards0 Rec TD7.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume10
Explosiveness6
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)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency36th %ile · below 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 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.
▸Peak game: 2.82 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Furman.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2021	37	0.240	0.0	8.9
D'Vaughn Pennamon	Ole Miss	2017	55	0.200	0.0	11.0
Kaden Feagin	Illinois	2024	52	0.150	0.0	7.8
Jordan Myers	Rice	2021	59	0.270	0.2	15.9
Jackson Acker	Wisconsin	2023	73	0.210	0.1	15.3

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	Long	EPA/play
1	vsLSU	L10-17	10.3	2	22	11.0	19	1.24
2	vsTroy	W27-16	-4.8	1	11	11.0	11	2.51
4	vsSyracuse	L21-34	-13.1	2	8	4.0	5	-0.16
7	@Boston College	W41-10	-8.5	1	-1	-1.0	0	-0.90
8	vsSMU	L24-35	13.4	1	11	11.0	11	-0.28
10	vsDuke	L45-46	6.6	2	6	3.0	7	-0.19
11	vsFlorida State	W24-10	7.2	3	32	10.7	25	0.29
12	@Louisville	W20-19	12.4	3	25	8.3	20	-0.13
13	vsFurman	W45-10	—	1	12	12.0	12	2.82

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

3.6%

Passing plays

6.5%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

3.2%

Passing downs

4.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.09
Passing downs: 0.41
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.20 / —

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