Usage Score
34.2
Player Profile
Emmanuel Sanders
WR • 5'11" • Bellville, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Emmanuel Sanders reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
82.5
Consistency
68.4
Season Value
71.3
Career Arc
Season-by-season value trend
Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason · SMU
0607080909
Quick Facts
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 5
- Primary stop by seasons
- SMU
- Best season by value score
- Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason · SMU
- Peak game by takeover score
- Peak game by takeover score: Houston
Emmanuel Sanders, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason · SMU. Emmanuel Sanders reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2009 Postseason
SMU paired 1,339 primary output with 82.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2009 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 82.5 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: UTEP
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 69.2th percentile of the selected season.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2009 Postseason · SMU
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
103
Efficiency
82.5
Usage
34.2
Consistency
68.4
Best Game by takeover score
Nevada
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Nevada: 124. Unknown: 66. UAB: 148. Washington State: 178. TCU: 74. East Carolina: 62. Navy: 53. Houston: 47. Tulsa: 79. Rice: 136. UTEP: 134. Marshall: 94. Tulane: 144
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. Nevada: 7 by 100. Unknown: 8 by 55. UAB: 9 by 100. Washington State: 18 by 65.9. TCU: 8 by 61.7. East Carolina: 4 by 100. Navy: 6 by 58.9. Houston: 6 by 52.2. Tulsa: 5 by 100. Rice: 6 by 100. UTEP: 7 by 100. Marshall: 8 by 78.3. Tulane: 6 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins118.1 · n=7 · +28.9 vs Losses
Losses89.2 · n=5 · -28.9 vs Wins
First Half100.7 · n=7 · -5.0 vs Second Half
Second Half105.7 · n=6 · +5.0 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
UTEP
Best efficiency game
100 vs Nevada
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/25 | vs Nevada100 receiving yards | W 45-10 | — | 7 | 124 | 17.7 | 17.70 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 11/28 | vs Tulane100 receiving yards | W 26-21 | — | 6 | 144 | 24 | 24 | 0 | 75 |
| Sat 11/21 | @ MarshallHigh volume | L 31-34 | — | 8 | 94 | 11.8 | 11.80 | 1 | 43 |
| Sat 11/14 | vs UTEP100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 35-31 | — | 7 | 134 | 19.1 | 19.10 | 2 | 37 |
| Sat 11/7 | vs Rice100 receiving yards | W 31-28 | — | 6 | 136 | 22.7 | 22.70 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ Tulsa | W 27-13 | — | 5 | 79 | 14.2 | 15.80 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 10/24 | @ Houston | L 15-38 | — | 6 | 47 | 7.8 | 7.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 10/18 | vs Navy | L 35-38 | — | 6 | 53 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 0 | 17 |
| Sun 10/11 | vs East Carolina | W 28-21 | — | 4 | 62 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 21 |
| Sun 10/4 | @ TCUHigh volume | L 14-39 | — | 8 | 74 | 9.3 | 9.30 | 1 | 34 |
| Sat 9/19 | @ Washington State100 receiving yards · High volume | L 27-30 | — | 18 | 178 | 9.9 | 9.90 | 0 | 45 |
| Sat 9/12 | @ UAB100 receiving yards · High volume | W 35-33 | — | 9 | 148 | 16.4 | 16.40 | 1 | 44 |
| Sun 9/6 | vs UnknownHigh volume | — | — | 8 | 66 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 0 | 21 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
SMU
2006-2009
Opening stop
Season Progression
20062007200820092009
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 Regular Season | SMU | 605 | 77.2 | 22.5 | — |
| 2007 Regular Season | SMU | 889 | 77.1 | 28.5 | 284 |
| 2008 Regular Season | SMU | 958 | 83.9 | 29.7 | 69 |
| 2009 Postseason | SMU | 1,339 | 82.5 | 34.2 | 381 |
| 2009 Regular Season | SMU | 1,339 | 82.5 | 34.2 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Houston
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
151
Primary metric
151 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Texas Tech
125
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
125 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Unknown
138
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
138 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Tulane
155
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Tulsa
132
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
132 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2009 Postseason · SMU
1,339 primary output · 82.5 efficiency · 34.2 usage
71.3
#2
2009 Regular Season · SMU
71.3
1,339 primary · 82.5 efficiency · 34.2 usage
#3
2008 Regular Season · SMU
67.2
958 primary · 83.9 efficiency · 29.7 usage
Milestones
16
100+ receiving yards
16
8+ catch outings
7
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2005 · Rating 0.7
Bellville · Bellville, TX
- Committed To
- SMU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2005
Career Facts
1
Career teams
5
Seasons tracked
3,791
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 5 tracked seasons, 46 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.
Career Metric Focus
Switch the career lens without tearing down the page.