AJ Barner Scouting Report and Fantasy Football Outlook

AJ Barner Scouting Report

• Underdog ADP: 216.0 Overall (TE62), rookie TE12

TEs can have archetypes just like WRs.

We just need to know how to bucket them.

I talked about this trail of logic while profiling Ja’Tavion Sanders. And I’ve workshopped some categories we can use.

• WR Playing TE – primarily a route runner and can create fantasy value through volume (e.g., Travis Kelce, Mike Gesicki)
• Move TE – blocker and receiver; rely more on touchdowns to be a TE1 (e.g., Hunter Henry, Luke Musgrave)
• Moves Slow TE – primarily a blocker, but can produce as a short-yardage/goal-line option (e.g., MyCole Pruitt, Drew Sample)

I’ve said it before: don’t get too attached to the names as they relate to fantasy production. However, athletic traits and on-field usage can make each archetype more or less of a priority. And by extension, we can slide players (veterans or prospects) up and down our ranks as a result. So, let’s dig into AJ Barner’s profile as we do with every rookie and look at his athletic profile.

At first glance, a few descriptors come to mind: tall, agile (for his size), and slow. And it’s the straight-line speed that will stick with most fantasy managers. But Barner made sure to let folks know his big frame can generate big plays. 

Not every TE has to blaze across the field or beat out his WR teammates for targets. Sometimes, all they need to do is fight through a block and trudge up the field by themselves. We don’t give extra points for style. So, while Barner doesn’t carry the usual measurables for an instant-impact TE, dynasty managers should have a taxi spot ready for the Michigan man.

Pros and Cons of AJ Barner

Pros

Improved as a Receiver

I already set the stage for Barner to be more of the blocking variety at TE. And we’ll get to that aspect of his game shortly. But the typical insinuation with this archetype is they’re not receivers. They can (usually) catch the ball, but the coaches scheme it up through misdirection. However, Barner breaks the mold in this regard.

When detached from the line, Coach Harbaugh would motion Barner across the formation pre-snap. He was a primary part of the passing concept. And the former Indiana TE could work against undersized defenders for extra yardage. Most importantly, Barner’s production relative to his team’s success continued to improve over his three seasons as a starter.

Again, and whenever I can, I’ll highlight Dwain’s Rookie Super Model and the importance of receiving yards per team pass attempt (RYPTPA) as it relates to predicting fantasy value. For Barner, his RYPTPA increased from 2021 to last season. That’s despite a change of scenery and taking on more of a blocking role (i.e., a drop in routes). At worst, Barner’s receiving prowess should force us to consider potential landing spots before discarding him in favor of other options late in drafts.

Reliable Blocker

Follow my logic for a second here.

TEs need snaps to get on the field. More snaps could turn into more fantasy opportunities.

Makes sense, right? Well, kind of.

For TEs, more plays could be more blocking reps and not routes. But, for a guy like Barner who has (slightly) above-average receiving skills, his technique as a blocker could wind up being a positive for fantasy.

It’s not just size with the Wolverine TE. If anything, going back to his measurables, Barner is average for the position. However, if you compare his height/weight with his (subtle) short-area quickness, his ability to quickly get off the line and hold a gap worked wonders for Michigan’s running game.

Again, I’ll acknowledge default fantasy leagues don’t award points for blocking. But we can all agree Barner (and any non-receiving TE) needs a path to getting on the field, even if it is to ram their body into someone else’s. So, he’d at least need to be one of the best protectors in his class. Luckily, he’s the best.

Barner was one of two TEs in the class with an above-average blocking rate and PFF grade. And between the two, Barner’s 86.0 grade sits atop the class.

Michigan created explosives through Barner’s efforts. He emphasized the same skill at the Senior Bowl. Subsequently, we shouldn’t worry about Barner getting on the field. His in-line ability should put him on the field early and often. 

Cons

Not Asked to be a Pass-Catcher

So, here’s where his early-career range of outcomes sits at the lower end of the scale. This is also why being good at a non-fantasy aspect of football makes it harder to roster TEs fitting into this archetype.

Barner ran a route on less than half of his QB’s dropbacks in college.

To be fair, it spiked to 80.3% in his final year at Indiana. But overall, he wasn’t seen as a consistent part of the passing game. And when compared to his peers in this regard, he starts to slide down the ranks of rosterable options.

Now, there are two plausible reasons for the lack of routes. The first is just bad timing on Barner’s part.

Barner’s transfer to Michigan, while to a winning program, pitted him against Coleston Loveland. Loveland’s 22.7% TPRR in ’23 was just behind the Wolverine’s WR1 at 22.8%. Having that level of competition forced Barner farther down the depth chart and put him into more of a blocking role. Accordingly, his routes never gained the nuance required in specific situations. 

It’s a chicken-and-egg situation. We don’t know if Barner’s unrefined routes pinned him into being an extra offensive lineman or if his above-average talent in the role kept him from learning more about the minutia of being a receiver. We may never know. However, unless teams find out through the interview process, Barner may take longer to see the field until he cleans up his game.

Didn’t Dominate as a Pass-Catcher

It’d be one thing if Barner’s limited routes still earned him targets. Like, think about it this way. If Barner only ran one route per game, but J.J. McCarthy threw his way every time, we’d give Barner the benefit of the doubt.

But clearly, that wasn’t the case. And for Barner, it got to the point where he was behind not just WRs but other TEs in terms of competing for targets.

On top of the lacking level of looks for Barner, it’s not like he was playing alongside future NFL greats. At least Peyton Hendershot and Ty Fryfogle are on rosters. And Roman Wilson has gained some draft buzz. But there was nothing to warrant being the fourth or fifth option unless there was a skill deficiency. So, let’s go back to the tape.

Again, Barner isn’t as sharp on the cut to get to the outside. It’s a half-beat at the college level, resulting in a PBU. However, in the NFL, a similar misstep could result in a pick. The reduced burst out of breaks pops up across his film, which could give teams even more pause. Suffice it to say, Barner will need to convince teams he’s up for the job and will work on his craft in the pros.

Fantasy Football Outlook for AJ Barner

Hopefully, you didn’t come to this profile expecting to find an instant high-impact player, a hidden gem,  or even a sleeper (the worst word in the fantasy lexicon). Those labels strip away any evaluation of a player and hastily apply a (unrealistic) projection.

However, watching Barner play gives you a better idea of how he could be valuable to an offense.

Barner won’t win with speed, but he can use it when needed. His height will make him a favorable red-zone threat. And we’ll take those targets should he earn them. However, they may not be consistent. Combined with his draft projection, a good landing spot is all we can ask for at this point.

Regardless, it doesn’t mean we should discard him as a potential fantasy asset. As I said in the intro, we can use a TE from every archetype. And for Barner, with the right team and time to develop, he could be that TE2 or TE3 on our roster we’ll need to keep our squad afloat.