← Player leaders
Bruin Fleischmann is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Air Force.
2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays
4%
projected
band 2%'25 4%6%
Regressed toward the TE mean. Model correlation r≈0.42 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.
2025 Production
Receiving
21 Receptions370 Rec yards6 Rec TD17.6 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 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
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 | vsBucknell | W49-13 | — | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 | 0.60 |
| 3 | @Utah State | L30-49 | -3.1 | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 | 7 | 0.33 |
| 4 | vsBoise State | L37-49 | 3.1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 1 | 5 | 2.44 |
| 5 | vsHawai'i | L35-44 | 1.7 | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 1 | 14 | 1.83 |
| 6 | @Navy | L31-34 | 6.2 | 6 | 166 | 27.7 | 1 | 68 | 1.79 |
| 7 | @UNLV | L48-51 | 4.3 | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 1 | 18 | 1.08 |
| 8 | vsWyoming | W24-21 | -11.3 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 | -1.02 |
| 10 | vsArmy | L17-20 | 0.8 | 1 | 21 | 21.0 | 0 | 21 | 2.99 |
| 11 | @San José State | W26-16 | -14.3 | 2 | 29 | 14.5 | 0 | 18 | 0.58 |
| 12 | @UConn | L16-26 | 5.1 | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | 10 | -0.23 |
| 14 | @Colorado State | W42-21 | -15.6 | 2 | 61 | 30.5 | 2 | 55 | — |
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).