Skip to content
Tanner Lemaster

#88Tanner Lemaster

Tanner Lemaster is a Versatile TE for Eastern Michigan.

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 Tanner Lemaster'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 Receptions69 Rec yards0 Rec TD13.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness45
  • Consistency76
  • 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 consistency76th %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.
  • Peak game: 1.61 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Texas State (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

+1.6101.61Wk 1 vs Texas State: +1.61 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Long Island University: +0.91 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kentucky: -0.03 EPA/play3
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Texas StateL27-522.324221.00331.61
2vsLong Island UniversityL23-2811111.00110.91
3@KentuckyL23-481.82168.0013-0.03
8@Miami (OH)L30-44-3.4

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.2%
Passing plays
5.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.9%
Passing downs
1.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.97
Passing downs
-0.81
Pass / Rush EPA
0.53 / —

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.