Skip to content
Bruin Fleischmann
Bruin Fleischmann

#99Bruin Fleischmann

Bruin Fleischmann is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Air Force.

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 Bruin Fleischmann'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
21 Receptions370 Rec yards6 Rec TD17.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness71
  • Consistency66
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency66th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 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 — 0.82 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.99 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Army (SP+ 1).

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

+2.9902.99Wk 1 vs Bucknell: +0.60 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Utah State: +0.33 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Boise State: +2.44 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Hawai'i: +1.83 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Navy: +1.79 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs UNLV: +1.08 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Wyoming: -1.02 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Army: +2.99 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs San José State: +0.58 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UConn: -0.23 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBucknellW49-13177.0070.60
3@Utah StateL30-49-3.12126.0070.33
4vsBoise StateL37-493.1155.0152.44
5vsHawai'iL35-441.72199.51141.83
6@NavyL31-346.2616627.71681.79
7@UNLVL48-514.323517.51181.08
8vsWyomingW24-21-11.3155.005-1.02
10vsArmyL17-200.812121.00212.99
11@San José StateW26-16-14.322914.50180.58
12@UConnL16-265.111010.0010-0.23
14@Colorado StateW42-21-15.626130.5255

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
17.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.3%
Passing downs
6.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.66
Passing downs
1.61
Pass / Rush EPA
1.01 / —

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.