Skip to content
Henry Boyer

#87Henry Boyer

Henry Boyer is a Slot Specialist TE for Kentucky.

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 Henry Boyer'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
5 Receptions62 Rec yards0 Rec TD12.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume7
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency79
  • Pass-Down0
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 consistency79th %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.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Peak game: 1.55 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Tennessee Tech.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Johnny LanganRutgers0.2400.08.9
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9
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

+1.5501.55Wk 6 vs Georgia: +0.57 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Texas: +0.44 EPA/play8Wk 12 vs Tennessee Tech: +1.55 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Vanderbilt: +0.28 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
6@GeorgiaL14-3524.111313.00130.57
8vsTexasL13-1616.211414.00140.44
10@AuburnW10-311.6
12vsTennessee TechW42-1011010.00101.55
13@VanderbiltL17-4520.322512.50190.28

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.3%
Passing plays
4.2%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
1.3%
Passing downs
4.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.99
Passing downs
-0.08
Pass / Rush EPA
0.35 / —

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.