#17Seth Green

TE·Minnesota·20180.0 pts line value1st Round

Seth Green is a Vertical Threat TE for Minnesota. Seth's 2018 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 80 plays — a developing rate for the TE.

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 Seth Green'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.

2018 Production

Rushing

282 Rush yards8 Rush TD76 Carries3.7 Yards/carry

Receiving

2 Receptions37 Rec yards0 Rec TD18.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2018 · vs TE peers

Efficiency0
Volume27
Explosiveness77
Consistency60
Pass-Down4

Player type

Vertical Threat TE

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency60th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs TE peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.62 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.32 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -20).

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
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2020	59	0.300	0.0	17.7
Evan Svoboda	Wyoming	2024	75	0.290	0.5	21.8
Jordan Myers	Rice	2021	59	0.270	0.2	15.9
Heinrich Haarberg	Nebraska	2023	112	0.260	0.6	29.1

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
1	vsNew Mexico State	W48-10	-20.2	—	—	—	—	—	2.32
2	vsFresno State	W21-14	17.4	—	—	—	—	—	0.43
3	vsMiami (OH)	W26-3	-0.7	—	—	—	—	—	1.19
4	@Maryland	L13-42	3.0	—	—	—	—	—	0.91
6	vsIowa	L31-48	13.3	—	—	—	—	—	0.28
7	@Ohio State	L14-30	24.1	—	—	—	—	—	0.02
8	@Nebraska	L28-53	5.4	1	31	31.0	0	31	-0.05
9	vsIndiana	W38-31	1.6	—	—	—	—	—	0.43
10	@Illinois	L31-55	-7.9	—	—	—	—	—	0.12
11	vsPurdue	W41-10	6.5	—	—	—	—	—	0.67
12	vsNorthwestern	L14-24	1.9	1	6	6.0	0	6	-0.53
13	@Wisconsin	W37-15	15.5	—	—	—	—	—	0.45
1	vsGeorgia Tech	W34-10	0.3	—	—	—	—	—	0.28

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

9.6%

Passing plays

2.5%

Rushing plays

15.3%

Standard downs

12.4%

Passing downs

3.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.40
Passing downs: 0.12
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.44 / 0.35

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2018 · 13 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.