Efficiency & Role
EPA = expected points added per play. Compared with every FBS WR/TE who qualifies
Advanced
Computed from every play, garbage time excluded. FBS rank among players with enough volume
| Receiving | Value | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Targets | 11 | — |
| Target share | 5.2% | — |
| Catch rate | 54.5% | — |
| Success rate per target | 36.4% | — |
| Yards per target | 6.9 | — |
| Explosive catches | 0.0% | — |
| Deep-target rate | 0.0% | — |
| 3rd-down targets | 1 | — |
| Red-zone targets | 0 | — |
Charting
Where Fuhrmann's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
Where he's targeted11 targets charted
Game Log
Isaiah Fuhrmann's box score, game by game, from ESPN, with a 0–10 game score for each (hover it for how it works). Click a result for the full game
| Receiving | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Game score | Rec | Yds | Y/R | TD | Long |
| 1 |  Colorado | L 13–14 | 4.5 | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | 10 |
| 2 |  Tennessee | L 24–45 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 3 |  Mercer | W 44–11 | 5.3 | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 0 | 19 |
| 4 | @ Stanford | L 27–34 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 6 |  Duke | W 28–25 | 5.7 | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 0 | 14 |
| 7 | @ Virginia Tech | L 24–34 | 5.7 | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 0 | 16 |
| 8 |  Boston College | L 27–49 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 9 | @ Pittsburgh | L 11–34 | 3.9 | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2026 · 5 games | 5.0 | 7 | 89 | 12.7 | 0 | 19 | ||
2026 Season Stats
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Receiving | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Receptions | 7 | 917th / 2089 |
| Yards | 89 | 842nd / 2074 |
| Yards / catch | 12.7 | — |
| Touchdowns | 0 | — |
| Long | 19 | — |
Snaps by Game
Estimated snaps from a model trained on real NFL snap counts. Ranges in brackets are where the real number lands 80% of the time: wide for a single game, tighter over the season. How it works
| Game | Team plays | Est. snaps | Plays involved | Penalties | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Colorado | 54 | ~25 (8–34) | 1 | · | 46% |
| Wk 2 · Tennessee | 71 | ~35 (11–48) | 1 | · | 49% |
| Wk 3 · Mercer | 62 | ~17 (5–23) | 1 | · | 27% |
| Wk 6 · Duke | 57 | ~39 (12–53) | 2 | · | 68% |
| Wk 7 · Virginia Tech | 59 | ~32 (10–44) | 2 | 1 | 54% |
| Wk 8 · Boston College | 60 | ~32 (10–44) | 2 | · | 53% |
| Wk 9 · Pittsburgh | 76 | ~22 (7–30) | 2 | · | 29% |
| Season | 509 | 202 (125–245) | 11 | 1 | 40% |
Position Room
14 WRs on the Georgia Tech roster, ordered by rec
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Rec | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Jordan Allen | WR | SO | 46 | 543 | 1 | 19% | +0.76 |
| 7 | Dalen Penson | WR | SO | 28 | 434 | 2 | 15% | +0.66 |
| 13 | Isaiah Fuhrmann | WR | JR | 7 | 89 | 0 | 5% | +0.28 |
| 16 | Jaiven Plummer | WR | SR | 6 | 94 | 3 | 6% | +0.86 |
| 6 | Debron Gatling | WR | JR | 4 | 66 | 1 | 4% | +0.90 |
| 3 | Rahkeem Smith | WR | SR | 2 | 12 | 0 | 4% | +0.14 |
| 21 | Darnell Collins | WR | FR | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7% | +0.19 |
| 37 | Joseph Moseley | WR | JR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | Wills Campbell | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 81 | Cal Faulkner | WR | SO | — | — | — | — | — |
| 82 | Kentrell Davis | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 84 | Evan Haynes | WR | SO | — | — | — | — | — |
| 87 | Coi Jean-Noel | WR | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 89 | Chris Elko | WR | SR | — | — | — | 3% | -0.54 |
Stats, EPA and usage come from CollegeFootballData.com and refresh daily. FBS ranks only count players with enough volume for the stat to mean something. Qualifying for EPA takes 4+ plays per team game. Georgia Tech depth chart →