Player Dossier

2020-2025

Texas A&M

Nate Boerkircher

TE • 6'4" • 250 lbs • Aurora, NE, USA

Reliable chain-moverPossession profile

Nate Boerkircher reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.

Usage Score

10.2

Efficiency

65.5

Consistency

55.5

Season Value

57.8

Career Arc

Value trend by season

Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Texas A&M

20212223242525

Snapshot

Career Teams
2
Seasons Tracked
7
Program Path
Nebraska • Texas A&M
Peak Game
Peak game by takeover score: Colorado

Scouting Read

Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.

Nate Boerkircher, TE. Best season Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Texas A&M. Nate Boerkircher reads as a reliable chain-mover based on recent role and receiving efficiency.

Nate Boerkircher played TE for Nebraska and Texas A&M. Across 6 tracked seasons, Nate Boerkircher recorded 16 rushing yards, 423 receiving yards, and 2 tackles. His top tracked season came in 2025 with Texas A&M.

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason

Texas A&M paired 204 primary output with 65.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 65.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Multi-stop career journey

Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Nebraska, Texas A&M.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: South Carolina

Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.

Analysis workspace

Season Workbench

Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2025 Postseason · Texas A&M

Games

11

Receiving Yards / G

18.5

Efficiency

65.5

Usage

10.2

Consistency

55.5

Best Game by takeover score

Miami

Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.

Active game

Hover over a point

Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.

Game-by-Game Trend

Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.

1234567891011

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Miami: 33. UTSA: 17. Notre Dame: 11. Auburn: 9. Mississippi State: 7. Florida: 35. Arkansas: 29. LSU: 0. Missouri: 15. South Carolina: 40. Texas: 8

Volume vs Efficiency

Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.

Low volumeHigh quality

High volumeHigh quality

Low volumeLower quality

High volumeLower quality

Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.

Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Miami: 2 by 100. UTSA: 2 by 56.7. Notre Dame: 1 by 73.3. Auburn: 1 by 60. Mississippi State: 1 by 46.7. Florida: 3 by 77.8. Arkansas: 4 by 48.3. Missouri: 2 by 50. South Carolina: 3 by 88.9. Texas: 1 by 53.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins18.1 · Games = 9 · -2.4 vs Losses
Losses20.5 · Games = 2 · +2.4 vs Wins
First Half18.7 · Games = 6 · +0.3 vs Second Half
Second Half18.4 · Games = 5 · -0.3 vs First Half

Game Log

Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.

11 games

Featured metric

Receiving Yards

Top game by takeover score

South Carolina

Best efficiency game

100 vs Miami

Result
Sat 12/20vs MiamiL 3-1023316.516.50019
Sat 11/29@ TexasL 17-27188808
Sat 11/15vs South CarolinaW 31-3034013.313.30119
Sat 11/8@ MissouriW 38-172157.57.50011
Sat 10/25@ LSUW 49-251
Sat 10/18@ ArkansasW 45-424297.37.30112
Sat 10/11vs FloridaW 34-1733511.711.70028
Sat 10/4vs Mississippi StateW 31-9175707
Sat 9/27vs AuburnW 16-10195909
Sat 9/13@ Notre DameW 41-401111111111
Sat 8/30vs UTSAW 42-242178.58.50013

Career Arc

Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.

  1. 1

    Nebraska

    2020-2024

    Opening stop

  2. 2

    Texas A&M

    2025

    Final stop

Season Progression

2020202120222023202420252025
SeasonTeamPrimaryEfficiencyUsageDelta
2020 Regular SeasonNebraska0
2021 Regular SeasonNebraska1446.76.914
2022 Regular SeasonNebraska5246.78.638
2023 Regular SeasonNebraska515511.7-1
2024 Regular SeasonNebraska10289.26.151
2025 PostseasonTexas A&M20465.510.2102
2025 Regular SeasonTexas A&M20465.510.20

Signature Performances

Top Games

#1 Featured game

Colorado

Loss with an explosive receiving profile.

33

Primary metric

33 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

#2

Unknown

32

Primary metric

Game with an explosive receiving profile.

32 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

#3

Iowa

39

Primary metric

Loss with an explosive receiving profile.

39 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

#4

South Carolina

40

Primary metric

Win with an explosive receiving profile.

40 receiving yards with a 88.9 efficiency score.

#5

Miami

33

Primary metric

Loss with an explosive receiving profile.

33 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.

Top Seasons

#1 Season by value score

2025 Postseason · Texas A&M

204 primary output · 65.5 efficiency · 10.2 usage

57.8

#2

2025 Regular Season · Texas A&M

57.8

204 primary · 65.5 efficiency · 10.2 usage

#3

2024 Regular Season · Nebraska

53.8

102 primary · 89.2 efficiency · 6.1 usage

Milestones

0

100+ receiving yards

0

8+ catch outings

0

2+ TD games

Bio, Recruit, and Data Context

Recruit context is not available for this player in the current dataset.

Career Facts

2

Career teams

7

Seasons tracked

423

Career Receiving Yards

Data Context

Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 28 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.