Usage Score
32.9
Player Dossier
2006-2009Texas
Jordan Shipley
WR • 6'0" • Burnet, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Jordan Shipley reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
73.3
Consistency
63.9
Season Value
67.5
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason · Texas
0606070708080909
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Texas
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: UCF
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Jordan Shipley, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason · Texas. Jordan Shipley reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason
Texas paired 1,485 primary output with 73.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2009 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 73.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2009 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UCF
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2009 Postseason · Texas
Games
14
Receiving Yards / G
106.1
Efficiency
73.3
Usage
32.9
Consistency
63.9
Best Game by takeover score
Alabama
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011121314
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Alabama: 122. UL Monroe: 180. Wyoming: 61. Texas Tech: 73. UTEP: 122. Colorado: 147. Oklahoma: 22. Missouri: 108. Oklahoma State: 64. UCF: 273. Baylor: 46. Kansas: 108. Texas A&M: 88. Nebraska: 71
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Alabama: 10 by 81.3. UL Monroe: 8 by 100. Wyoming: 7 by 58.1. Texas Tech: 11 by 44.2. UTEP: 10 by 81.3. Colorado: 11 by 89.1. Oklahoma: 4 by 36.7. Missouri: 7 by 100. Oklahoma State: 6 by 71.1. UCF: 11 by 100. Baylor: 6 by 51.1. Kansas: 10 by 72. Texas A&M: 8 by 73.3. Nebraska: 7 by 67.6
Split Comparison
Wins104.8 · n=13
First Half103.9 · n=7 · -4.4 vs Second Half
Second Half108.3 · n=7 · +4.4 vs First Half
All Games106.1 · n=14
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
14 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
UCF
Best efficiency game
100 vs UCF
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 1/8 | @ Alabama100 receiving yards · High volume | L 21-37 | — | 10 | 122 | 12.2 | 12.20 | 2 | 44 |
| Sun 12/6 | @ Nebraska | W 13-12 | — | 7 | 71 | 10.1 | 10.10 | 0 | 19 |
| Fri 11/27 | @ Texas A&MHigh volume · 2+ TD | W 49-39 | — | 8 | 88 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 22 |
| Sun 11/22 | vs Kansas100 receiving yards · High volume | W 51-20 | — | 10 | 108 | 10.8 | 10.80 | 1 | 38 |
| Sat 11/14 | @ Baylor2+ TD | W 47-14 | — | 6 | 46 | 7.7 | 7.70 | 2 | 21 |
| Sat 11/7 | vs UCF100 receiving yards · High volume | W 35-3 | — | 11 | 273 | 24.8 | 24.80 | 1 | 88 |
| Sun 11/1 | @ Oklahoma State | W 41-14 | — | 6 | 64 | 10.7 | 10.70 | 0 | 16 |
| Sun 10/25 | @ Missouri100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 41-7 | — | 7 | 108 | 15.4 | 15.40 | 2 | 31 |
| Sat 10/17 | vs Oklahoma | W 16-13 | — | 4 | 22 | 5.5 | 5.50 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 10/10 | vs Colorado100 receiving yards · High volume | W 38-14 | — | 11 | 147 | 13.4 | 13.40 | 1 | 39 |
| Sat 9/26 | vs UTEP100 receiving yards · High volume | W 64-7 | — | 10 | 122 | 12.2 | 12.20 | 1 | 23 |
| Sun 9/20 | vs Texas TechHigh volume | W 34-24 | — | 11 | 73 | 6.6 | 6.60 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/12 | @ Wyoming | W 41-10 | — | 7 | 61 | 7.6 | 8.70 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 9/5 | vs UL Monroe100 receiving yards · High volume | W 59-20 | — | 8 | 180 | 22.5 | 22.50 | 1 | 78 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas
2006-2009
Opening stop
Season Progression
20062006200720072008200820092009
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 Postseason | Texas | 229 | 70.1 | 10.2 | — |
| 2006 Regular Season | Texas | 229 | 70.1 | 10.2 | 0 |
| 2007 Postseason | Texas | 417 | 84.1 | 13.7 | 188 |
| 2007 Regular Season | Texas | 417 | 84.1 | 13.7 | 0 |
| 2008 Postseason | Texas | 1,060 | 73.6 | 25.4 | 643 |
| 2008 Regular Season | Texas | 1,060 | 73.6 | 25.4 | 0 |
| 2009 Postseason | Texas | 1,485 | 73.3 | 32.9 | 425 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Texas | 1,485 | 73.3 | 32.9 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
UCF
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
273
Primary metric
273 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Rice
155
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Oklahoma State
168
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
168 receiving yards with a 74.7 efficiency score.
#4
Iowa State
71
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
71 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Unknown
68
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
68 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2009 Postseason · Texas
1,485 primary output · 73.3 efficiency · 32.9 usage
67.5
#2
2009 Regular Season · Texas
67.5
1,485 primary · 73.3 efficiency · 32.9 usage
#3
2008 Postseason · Texas
61.5
1,060 primary · 73.6 efficiency · 25.4 usage
Milestones
10
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
7
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2007 · Rating 0.8411
Washington · Massillon, OH
- Committed To
- Illinois
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2007
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
3,191
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 48 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.