← Player leaders
Peter Clarke is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Temple. Peter's 2025 season produced 31.0 total EPA across 33 plays.
2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays
5%
projected
band 3%'25 6%7%
Regressed toward the TE mean. Model correlation r≈0.42 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.
2025 Production
Receiving
30 Receptions483 Rec yards6 Rec TD16.1 Yards/rec
Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers
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 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.
- ▸7 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 — 0.65 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
EPA per play, by weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Opp SP+ | Rec | Rec Yds | Avg | Rec TD | Long | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @Massachusetts | W42-10 | -36.6 | 4 | 85 | 21.3 | 2 | 29 | 2.32 |
| 2 | vsHoward | W55-7 | — | 2 | 34 | 17.0 | 0 | 30 | 1.15 |
| 4 | @Georgia Tech | L24-45 | 9.3 | 2 | 28 | 14.0 | 0 | 18 | 0.23 |
| 6 | vsUTSA | W27-21 | 3.7 | 4 | 82 | 20.5 | 1 | 36 | 1.08 |
| 7 | vsNavy | L31-32 | 6.2 | 5 | 47 | 9.4 | 0 | 20 | 0.63 |
| 8 | @Charlotte | W49-14 | -26.7 | 3 | 31 | 10.3 | 1 | 18 | 1.70 |
| 9 | @Tulsa | W38-37 | -10.0 | 3 | 71 | 23.7 | 0 | 50 | — |
| 10 | vsEast Carolina | L14-45 | 8.0 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 | -0.34 |
| 11 | @Army | L13-14 | 0.8 | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 0 | 34 | 0.86 |
| 13 | vsTulane | L13-37 | 6.3 | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 1 | 22 | 0.88 |
| 14 | @North Texas | L25-52 | 13.8 | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 1 | 16 | 0.33 |
Usage & Situational · Pro
Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.1%
Passing plays
13.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.7%
Passing downs
4.9%
EPA by down type
- Standard downs
- 0.81
- Passing downs
- 1.28
- Pass / Rush EPA
- 0.94 / —
Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).