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 | 7 | — |
| Target share | 5.3% | — |
| Catch rate | 57.1% | — |
| Success rate per target | 57.1% | — |
| Yards per target | 5.6 | — |
| Explosive catches | 0.0% | — |
| Deep-target rate | 0.0% | — |
| 3rd-down targets | 1 | — |
| Red-zone targets | 2 | — |
Charting
Where Loerzel's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
Where he's targeted8 targets charted
Game Log
Will Loerzel'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 |  Akron | W 38–16 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 2 | @ Purdue | W 38–36 | 5.7 | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 | 9 |
| 3 |  Miami | L 20–33 | 5.5 | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 | 15 |
| 4 | @ Louisville | W 30–27 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 5 |  Stanford | W 57–3 | 6.5 | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 1 | 8 |
| 6 | @ NC State | W 38–14 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 7 | @ California | W 41–7 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 9 |  Virginia | W 51–7 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 2026 · 3 games | 5.9 | 5 | 40 | 8.0 | 1 | 15 | ||
2026 Season Stats
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Receiving | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Receptions | 5 | 1122nd / 2089 |
| Yards | 40 | 1239th / 2074 |
| Yards / catch | 8 | — |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 412th / 914 |
| Long | 15 | — |
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 | Start | Team plays | Est. snaps | Plays involved | Penalties | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Akron | ✓ TE | 67 | · | · | 1 | — |
| Wk 2 · Purdue | ✓ TE | 68 | ~42 (36–51) | 3 | · | 62% |
| Wk 3 · Miami | ✓ TE | 63 | ~27 (13–39) | 2 | · | 43% |
| Wk 5 · Stanford | — | 66 | ~29 (13–41) | 2 | · | 44% |
| Wk 6 · NC State | — | 70 | ~16 (7–23) | 1 | · | 23% |
| Wk 7 · California | ✓ TE | 62 | · | · | · | — |
| Wk 9 · Virginia | — | 72 | · | · | 1 | — |
| Season | 4 GS | 529 | 114 (79–153) | 8 | 2 | 22% |
Position Room
6 TEs on the Wake Forest roster, ordered by rec
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Rec | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | Kamrean Johnson | TE | SR | 9 | 64 | 1 | 6% | +0.12 |
| 84 | Dominick Barry | TE | FR | 6 | 116 | 3 | 5% | +0.71 |
| 85 | Will Loerzel | TE | SO | 5 | 40 | 1 | 6% | +0.08 |
| 48 | Matthew Lusardi | TE | SR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3% | +1.90 |
| 81 | Landon Morris | TE | SR | 1 | 13 | 0 | 9% | -0.17 |
| 89 | Brady Shust | TE | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
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. Wake Forest depth chart →