#83Reece Adkins

TE·Massachusetts·2025

Reece Adkins is a Versatile TE for Massachusetts.

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 Reece Adkins'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

9 Receptions133 Rec yards1 Rec TD14.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume12
Explosiveness52
Consistency78
Pass-Down0

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 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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.29 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.05 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Western Michigan (SP+ -1).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4

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	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
2	vsBryant	L26-27	—	2	20	10.0	0	16	0.62
5	@Missouri	L6-42	14.4	1	15	15.0	0	15	0.18
6	vsWestern Michigan	L3-21	-1.4	1	15	15.0	0	15	1.05
7	@Kent State	L6-42	-19.3	2	54	27.0	0	51	0.69
8	vsBuffalo	L21-28	-7.5	1	5	5.0	0	5	0.10
14	vsBowling Green	L14-45	-12.6	2	24	12.0	1	20	0.20

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

4.2%

Passing plays

7.5%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

3.7%

Passing downs

5.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 1.01
Passing downs: 0.55
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.80 / —

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