Skip to content
Ethan Davis

#0Ethan Davis

Ethan Davis is a Slot Specialist TE for Tennessee.

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 Ethan Davis'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
21 Receptions257 Rec yards2 Rec TD12.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume12
  • Explosiveness35
  • Consistency67
  • Pass-Down94
Player type
Slot Specialist TE

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency67th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.47 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.35 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Kentucky (SP+ 2).

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
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.3502.35Wk 2 vs East Tennessee State: -0.93 EPA/play2Wk 9 vs Kentucky: +2.35 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Oklahoma: +0.71 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs New Mexico State: +1.81 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Florida: +0.81 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Vanderbilt: +0.92 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsEast Tennessee StateW72-17111.001-0.93
9@KentuckyW56-341.822311.51132.35
10vsOklahomaL27-3318.356212.40400.71
12vsNew Mexico StateW42-9-15.511414.00141.81
13@FloridaW31-113.557214.41230.81
14vsVanderbiltL24-4520.378512.10200.92

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.2%
Passing plays
9.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.5%
Passing downs
6.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.61
Passing downs
0.88
Pass / Rush EPA
0.72 / —

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.