Skip to content
Peter Clarke
Peter Clarke

#88Peter Clarke

TE·Temple·2025

Peter Clarke is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Temple. Peter's 2025 season produced 38.9 total EPA across 38 plays.

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 Peter Clarke'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
30 Receptions483 Rec yards6 Rec TD16.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness61
  • Consistency78
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency78th %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.
  • ▸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 — 0.25 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.32 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Massachusetts (SP+ -37).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.320−2.32Wk 1 vs Massachusetts: +2.32 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Howard: +1.15 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Georgia Tech: +0.23 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs UTSA: +1.08 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Navy: +0.63 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Charlotte: +1.70 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Tulsa: +1.88 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs East Carolina: -0.34 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Army: +0.86 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Tulane: +1.46 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs North Texas: +0.33 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@MassachusettsW42-10-36.648521.32292.32
2vsHowardW55-7—23417.00301.15
4@Georgia TechL24-459.322814.00180.23
6vsUTSAW27-213.748220.51361.08
7vsNavyL31-326.25479.40200.63
8@CharlotteW49-14-26.733110.31181.70
9@TulsaW38-37-10.037123.70501.88
10vsEast CarolinaL14-458.0155.005-0.34
11@ArmyL13-140.825125.50340.86
13vsTulaneL13-376.322512.51221.46
14@North TexasL25-5213.822412.01160.33

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.9%
Passing plays
12.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.5%
Passing downs
4.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.90
Passing downs
1.37
Pass / Rush EPA
1.02 / —

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.