Usage Score
28.1
Player Dossier
2007-2009Cincinnati
WR • 6'1" • Bunnell, FL, USA
Mardy Gilyard reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
28.1
Efficiency
81.2
Consistency
70.4
Season Value
68.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by Season Value: 2008 Postseason · Cincinnati
Snapshot
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.
Mardy Gilyard, WR. Best season Best season by Season Value: 2008 Postseason · Cincinnati. Mardy Gilyard reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Mardy Gilyard played WR for Cincinnati. Across 3 tracked seasons, Mardy Gilyard recorded 26 rushing yards, 3,003 receiving yards, and 29 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2009 with Cincinnati.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2008 Postseason
Cincinnati paired 1,276 primary output with 90.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2009 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 81.2 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: Fresno State
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
91.6
Efficiency
81.2
Usage
28.1
Consistency
70.4
Best Game by takeover score
Fresno State
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Florida: 41. Rutgers: 89. Southeast Missouri State: 111. Oregon State: 65. Fresno State: 177. Miami (OH): 75. South Florida: 75. Louisville: 82. Syracuse: 62. UConn: 172. West Virginia: 22. Illinois: 102. Pittsburgh: 118
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Florida: 7 by 39. Rutgers: 8 by 74.2. Southeast Missouri State: 6 by 100. Oregon State: 9 by 48.1. Fresno State: 9 by 100. Miami (OH): 6 by 83.3. South Florida: 5 by 100. Louisville: 4 by 100. Syracuse: 6 by 68.9. UConn: 12 by 95.6. West Virginia: 3 by 48.9. Illinois: 7 by 97.1. Pittsburgh: 5 by 100
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Fresno State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Pittsburgh
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/2 | @ Florida | L 24-51 | — | 7 | 41 | 5.9 | 5.90 | 0 | 12 |
| Sat 12/5 | @ Pittsburgh100 receiving yards | W 45-44 | — | 5 | 118 | 23.6 | 23.60 | 1 | 68 |
| Fri 11/27 | vs Illinois100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 49-36 | — | 7 | 102 | 14.6 | 14.60 | 2 | 45 |
| Sat 11/14 | vs West Virginia | W 24-21 | — | 3 | 22 | 7.3 | 7.30 | 0 | 8 |
| Sun 11/8 | vs UConn100 receiving yards · High volume | W 47-45 | — | 12 | 172 | 14.3 | 14.30 | 0 | 54 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ Syracuse | W 28-7 | — | 6 | 62 | 9.3 | 10.30 | 0 | 26 |
| Sat 10/24 | vs Louisville | W 41-10 | — | 4 | 82 | 17.4 | 20.50 | 1 | 31 |
| Thu 10/15 | @ South Florida | W 34-17 | — | 5 | 75 | 13.3 | 15 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 10/3 | @ Miami (OH) | W 37-13 | — | 6 | 75 | 12.5 | 12.50 | 1 | 23 |
| Sat 9/26 | vs Fresno State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 28-20 | — | 9 | 177 | 19.7 | 19.70 | 2 | 56 |
| Sat 9/19 | @ Oregon StateHigh volume | W 28-18 | — | 9 | 65 | 7.2 | 7.20 | 1 | 19 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs Southeast Missouri State100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 70-3 | — | 6 | 111 | 16 | 18.50 | 2 | 37 |
| Mon 9/7 | @ RutgersHigh volume | W 47-15 | — | 8 | 89 | 10.1 | 11.10 | 1 | 23 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Cincinnati
2007-2009
Opening stop
Season Value Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 536 | 78.9 | 17.3 | — |
| 2008 Postseason | Cincinnati | 1,276 | 90.5 | 29.6 | 740 |
| 2008 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 1,276 | 90.5 | 29.6 | 0 |
| 2009 Postseason | Cincinnati | 1,191 | 81.2 | 28.1 | -85 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Cincinnati | 1,191 | 81.2 | 28.1 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Fresno State
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
177
Primary metric
177 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Virginia Tech
158
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
158 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
UConn
172
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
172 receiving yards with a 95.6 efficiency score.
#4
Southeast Missouri State
134
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
134 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Hawai'i
136
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
136 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#1 Season by Season Value
2008 Postseason · Cincinnati
1,276 primary output · 90.5 efficiency · 29.6 usage
74.3
#2
2008 Regular Season · Cincinnati
74.3
1,276 primary · 90.5 efficiency · 29.6 usage
#3
2009 Postseason · Cincinnati
68.2
1,191 primary · 81.2 efficiency · 28.1 usage
14
100+ receiving yards
7
8+ catch outings
5
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2004 · Rating 0.7444
Bowie · Arlington, TX
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
3,003
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 36 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Next best actions
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.